Dr. Peterson question about MormonTimes article

[_harmony]

Has it really all come down to this: if you believe it, then it's real?

I don't think harmony was saying that, but you'll have to ask her.

I think that more accurately described your worldview, Daniel. But I doubt you were saying that out loud.

And no, that's not what I was saying.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I think that more accurately described your worldview, Daniel.

LOL. Not even close.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Daniel, you appear to be a true believer, one with spirit and one with enthusiasm. Perhaps your little mustard seed of faith has grown quite large and strong. I would assume that you believe that many share the same spiritual greatness as what you may have achieved.

But could you imagine that what you perceive to be spiritual giants are in fact still little mustard seeds? Little seeds that hope their little crevice in which they have been placed may someday get the sun, rain and nourishment to grow and thrive. Perhaps I have grown just a bit to cynical believing that faith in this life will be nothing more than a mustard seed. And most everyone has simply raised their spiritual persona for the sole reason to keep up with the Joneses.

[_harmony]

Perhaps I have grown just a bit to cynical believing that faith in this life will be nothing more than a mustard seed. And most everyone has simply raised their spiritual persona for the sole reason to keep up with the Joneses.

More likely the Smiths, the Youngs, and the Kimballs.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

How I started this thread:

Why is it that the Spirit is essential in these matters, when it is generally something that a questioning member probably lacks a feeling of?

I liked the fact that you mention that these issues often must be faced and dealt with. But, you stacked the deck in favor of Mormonism with the books that you suggested.

What if God did call Joseph Smith and in fact, Joseph failed along the way and introduced his own belief and polygamy into what was started?

I received my new Ensign this week and like a good home-teacher read Uchtdorf's article and thought of my questions I posed to DCP in this thread. As I have commented I stated how I felt that many church attending LDS are simply going along, they know there are issues and simply hoping that God will grant them a CK type of life in the end, for their efforts.

I received the very same impression while reading the Ensign article. He states that it is important to look for the good, don't find reasons to criticize and don't find fault with the church or others. I felt that as though he tried to suggest that he was mainly speaking of judging other people, that what he really was implying was don't judge the church for things done in the past or even the present.

The next little part was titled "The bright side of a dog bite." Again, I look at this article as being very much about the church, and how we are to simply ignore what injury we may have received and look for the good. The last paragraph particularly where it states that "...adversity is a part of Heavenly Father's plan for us" and "..look for the good and not the bad."

It was at this time after reading these two articles that I come across a photograph of a glass half full/empty, and the title called "Look for the Good around you." Again, I am approached by an image that basically tells me that yes the church may in fact only be a half filled glass, but you must simply look at this glass as half full and not half empty to find enough satisfaction in this life to press on.

I have no doubt that the faith defenders here are simply going to interpret my feelings about what I have read as simple delusions of messages that in no way conveyed any of what the church or the church leaders want members to believe. But they fail to see a church of morgbots that lack true spirit and belief. They believe all is well in Zion and it just may appear that way, but accepting a half-filled glass as adequate is not going to sit well with everybody in the church.

While I know there are still many true believers who really believe that the Book of Abraham is real God given scripture and polygamy was a God given commandment for his chosen people, I think there are others (some that I know) who maintain a belief that this glass is half full (the church isn't perfect) and that's probably good enough and worth accepting.

Do you find a bright side to this dog bite??

<Follow up>
I don't think this really refers to what are known as NOM's as someone suggested. NOM's in my mind try to understand the issues, while the particular people I am speaking of, will do whatever they can to avoid them.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Can't believe I am about to promote something from the MormonTimes, I guess some of you might just say that there's still hope for me.

MormonTimes article relating to what I am talking about.
http://bit.ly/hf5fss

I guess many still have just a few drops in their glasses, but remain positive, focus on what is there and what is not there, and hope that more will someday come.

So I believe that Thomas Merton was correct, most of us simply do not want the spirit. I believe many don't focus on how filled their glasses are because at this point they just want to be comfortable and going to church doing the things they have been raised to do is simply a comfortable way of life.

[_Kevin Graham]

My point, of course, was that, since the publicly available evidence is insufficient to definitively prove or disprove fundamental religious claims, any conclusion regarding them necessarily goes beyond the publicly available evidence.

This begs the question. Is the publicly available evidence insufficient to definitively disprove fundamental religious claims? Well it depends on the claim. If I start a religion on the fundamental principle that God lives in a pool of milk and sends radio signals from the moon, this can in fact be disproved via science.

Likewise, when Joseph Smith starts a religion on the fundamental principle that he is a bonafide prophet who can translate ancient documents, we can know that this is utter nonsense given the publicly available evidence to the contrary.

You may disagree, but most thinkers don't believe that the indisputable facts exist to either decisively prove or decisively disprove theism.

Theism is one thing, but a religion that makes a plethora of falsifiable claims, is something entirely different. Mormonism has been effectively disproven, which is why people who know the facts do not join up.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

Is the publicly available evidence insufficient to definitively disprove fundamental religious claims?

Is the private evidence locked up in the granite mountain of Little Cottonwood Canyon sufficient evidence that the church also wants it's members to shelve and put away any serious inquiry into what the facts might prove?

[_Jason Bourne]

In this life, we "see through a glass, darkly." That's simply the way it is. For believers and unbelievers. And I don't think anybody really disagrees. It's the universal mortal condition.

Yes I agree. This has often even as more of a TBM, why God would have made it so awfully difficult and muddy.

Joseph Smith is the only witness to his vision.

To his First Vision, yes. But not to most of his other visions, which he shares with Oliver Cowdery, Sidney Rigdon, the Three Witnesses, etc.

Well to Moroni's visits and the obtaining of the plates and to many of his revelations he was the sole source. But granted there are the three witnesses and participants in other visions that were reported.

1: When I was a missionary we were told to teach the FV account, teach people that the spirit would tell the investigator that it was true, they would feel the spirit while we taught and they would know that they should be part of the Church that came from that. If they had issues as we continued to teach we would point out if they know Joseph Smith saw God and was called as a prophet that nothing else mattered. The Church was true and all that came from Joseph Smith was true and that is how they could resolve their issues.

But this approach is too simplistic.

Perhaps. But Joseph's and the Church's other claims become much more probable once it is granted.

Of course. And this is why the only thing we can do is look to the actions and character of the testator to see if we think his accounts of one on one encounters with God can be trusted. For me Joseph is a mixed bag here and I have lost some of my trust in him as I have uncovered some of the more difficult aspects of his life.

Even if Joseph Smith did see God do we know God wanted him to start a Church?

His continuance as a prophet, his reception of subsequent revelations, argues that his path was acceptable to God.

But this is subjective. My personal view is God may have called him but I think later events and revelations may not have been of God.

Do we know the other claims Joseph Smith made of supernatural interventions are true?

They tend to be better supported by additional witnesses than the First Vision is.

yes some are.

Could he have had direction to start a Church and strayed from it? Could he have been a true prophet that was a fallen prophet as many of those who followed and then became disaffected believed? Could he have been a prophet and introduced false ideas later on in his career?

It's certainly logically possible. I'm aware of nothing that would convince me of that, though, and am to the contrary, aware of much that, to me, points to his subsequent actions as divinely approved.

we should explore those.

2: If we are to trust Joseph Smith and conclude that what he claimed was true then how are we to do so? Certainly with spiritual matters one needs to pray and include God in the decision making process. But one needs to look the to the evidence as well. What evidence do we have from Joseph Smith? Well we have the Book of Mormon, the revelations, the organization and so on. We also have his life and the way he behaved and acted. Theses things weigh heavily on whether or not we can trust his claims of fantastic intervention by God and angels.

And this is where I as a missionary as well as the Church I think falls short. To make a life altering commitment I think requires more than what the Church typically offers when it tells its members or prospective members to pray and act on the feelings they get based on those prayers.

The trouble is that the information is always more or less ambiguous, and yet the decision has to be pretty much absolute. One either commits oneself or, if the commitment is less than full, doesn't. Practically speaking, agnosticism usually ends up looking very much atheism.

Ultimate decisions have to, must, transcend the publicly available data. This isn't true only for Mormonism. It's true for any world-orientational decision.

Yes but the church pushes decisions based in limited data that I believe they know if they disclosed it may prevent some from joining or other making other commitments of time and money and lifestyle.

But I understand the conundrum the Church faces.

Feelings are fickle and can betray one often. We can get warm feelings that are that are like what the Church teaches is the spirit witnessing of truth by watching a good movie or reading a good book. I felt as powerful an emotion when I finished reading the Lord of the Rings the first time as I did when I prayed about the Book of Mormon.

As I say, we see "through a glass, darkly." Yet we must decide.

I believe that spiritual promptings can indeed be distinguished from aesthetic reactions and mere emotions, but it's difficult, and each person must work on doing this, and there are no publicly available objective rules for doing so.

It is very difficult. Perhaps I am poor at doing so. I certainly have tried. I do have a handful of what I have always believed were powerful spiritual experiences and messages that i still hold on too. But I am skeptical the many persons are feeling the spirit when they stand up in testimony meeting month after month and are weeping before they begin and equate that with the spirit.

Incidentally, I believe that there is much in The Lord of the Rings to which the Spirit can, in fact, bear witness. (I've been a "fan" of Tolkien -- that's really too weak a word -- since long before he became really fashionable.)

Same here! I read the Lord of the Rings about 10 times before I was 16.

I am not sure I have an answer for all of this. Maybe this is why I look more the the evidence now and sadly for me at least, it makes it hard for me to trust JSs claims in their entirety.

And that illustrates my point. The evidence is not decisive, and can be read different ways. I look at the evidence (I've been deeply immersed in it for decades now), and, in my judgment, though not without problems and perplexities, it points powerfully to the trustworthiness of Joseph Smith.

And of course I respect that people will come to different conclusions. But I think people should explore beyond what the Church voluntarily offers before they commit.

Again, why not take a more measured approach and have a chance for more full disclosure before say a non member takes the plunge?

I'm fine with taking whatever time and/or effort an investigator needs in order to make a decision.

You are but the missionary program is not.

Most people really don't study history or philosophy, and it's unrealistic to expect that they'll want to do so before deciding on a church. But even if they did, there are believing theistic historians and atheistic historians, faithful Latter-day Saint historians and unbelieving historians of Mormonism, Christian philosopher and atheistic philosophers, Mormon philosophers and non-Mormon philosophers. Evidence and logic don't compel any particular position. Bright, rational, and well-informed people can be found on every side of every major worldview

The Church knows this too. They even have said most people do not join a Church for doctrinal issues which I have found odd. Rather they join for social issue, what the Church can do for them and family, how they feel when they participate, etc. And this is why the Church focuses more on feelings and the orthopraxy side of things. And honestly these are the main things that keep me going though I do find much of LDS doctrine appealing still.

[_Wisdom Seeker]

The glasses I believe most LDS members prefer to look through are simply rose colored glasses. But it still appears that the rose colored glasses have no effect on the apologists, they still are seeing things in black and white.

Reminds me of the movie Pleasantville.