DiscussMormonism.com

First off, I want to acknowledge that I am aware that everyone has biases, a unique framework of viewing existence and all of that.

It is my perception that apologists start with an assumption, and do their best to twist, turn, and shove everything into a box and hope it fits.

When presented with reasonable evidence, shouldn't we re-examine our position and change? And be willing to change as new things come to light?

The act of desperately attempting to explain away evidences that contradict one's assumptions or beliefs makes the assumptions or beliefs begin to appear suspect...

Here is a fantastic exit story that won some type of web award, where the author lost his faith due to apologetics...it is hilarious:

http://www.totryanewsword.com/2010/07/h ... n-god.html

This post is just my view on apologetics...

But for those LDS apologists on the board, did you ever waiver in your belief when you discovered certain things that appear to discredit your beliefs? Do you ever feel that you are working too hard to have things make sense in your world view?

What would it take for you personally to change your beliefs? Or could nothing, no matter how strange or damaging alter your views?

Lost Mystic wrote:First off, I want to acknowledge that I am aware that everyone has biases, a unique framework of viewing existence and all of that.

It is my perception that apologists start with an assumption, and do their best to twist, turn, and shove everything into a box and hope it fits.

This perception is largely false.

When presented with reasonable evidence, shouldn't we re-examine our position and change? And be willing to change as new things come to light?

Yes.

The act of desperately attempting to explain away evidences that contradict one's assumptions or beliefs makes the assumptions or beliefs begin to appear suspect...

I avoid acting that way. It's all a matter of perception though. I view critics the same way when they try to explain away well-attested miracles. They don't appear to me to reexamine either.

But for those LDS apologists on the board, did you ever waiver in your belief when you discovered certain things that appear to discredit your beliefs?

Yes, but they were all when trying to understand the character of God.

Do you ever feel that you are working too hard to have things make sense in your world view?

No.

What would it take for you personally to change your beliefs? Or could nothing, no matter how strange or damaging alter your views?

If by changing my beliefs you mean deciding the LDS faith is false I would need:

A rational and reasonable explanation with evidence for all my spiritual experiences including prophecies about the future and (at the time) illogical instructions that when followed led to success.

The Nehor wrote:If by changing my beliefs you mean deciding the LDS faith is false I would need:

A rational and reasonable explanation with evidence for all my spiritual experiences including prophecies about the future and (at the time) illogical instructions that when followed led to success.

That one's easy: mental illness.

I loved that Star Wars blog entry :D

The Nehor wrote:

Lost Mystic wrote:First off, I want to acknowledge that I am aware that everyone has biases, a unique framework of viewing existence and all of that.

It is my perception that apologists start with an assumption, and do their best to twist, turn, and shove everything into a box and hope it fits.

This perception is largely false.

I know this is my personal perception. Part of the reason I have this view is because of the internal battle I waged when I was a TBM. My internal apologist was working overtime shoving things inside of a box. Once the box broke, things made much more sense to me.

The Nehor wrote:

Lost Mystic wrote:What would it take for you personally to change your beliefs? Or could nothing, no matter how strange or damaging alter your views?

If by changing my beliefs you mean deciding the LDS faith is false I would need:

A rational and reasonable explanation with evidence for all my spiritual experiences including prophecies about the future and (at the time) illogical instructions that when followed led to success.

I guess it all comes down to the personal "spiritual experience"...once it reaches that point, discussion gets diluted. I can't deny that you may have had a spiritual experience. I could chalk it up to chemical reactions and such, but that would become my assumption.

Lost Mystic wrote:First off, I want to acknowledge that I am aware that everyone has biases, a unique framework of viewing existence and all of that.

then why is what follows contrary to that? "reasonable evidence" assumes that something exists as truth outside of what you describe here, correct?

It is my perception that apologists start with an assumption, and do their best to twist, turn, and shove everything into a box and hope it fits.[/quote]
i propose that this is not only true with some LDS apologists but with LDS foes as well.

When presented with reasonable evidence, shouldn't we re-examine our position and change? And be willing to change as new things come to light?

the adjective "reasonable" assumes examination already....however, "be willing to change"? arguable to the merits of that. Sometimes a forced change is more beneficial.
And again, apologist or foe could be the subject here.

The act of desperately attempting to explain away evidences that contradict one's assumptions or beliefs makes the assumptions or beliefs begin to appear suspect...

one man's trash is another's treasure......they would only appear suspect to he that was in agreement with the contradiction, to another it would appear as a valiant effort to thwart an assault.

Here is a fantastic exit story that won some type of web award, where the author lost his faith due to apologetics...it is hilarious:

http://www.totryanewsword.com/2010/07/h ... n-god.html

anecdotal

This post is just my view on apologetics...

seems like it is a better indictment on a basic fallacy of people.

But for those LDS apologists on the board, did you ever waiver in your belief when you discovered certain things that appear to discredit your beliefs? Do you ever feel that you are working too hard to have things make sense in your world view?

i often waiver in what i believe, but what i "know" is a different matter.

What would it take for you personally to change your beliefs?

a large cash prize and an incredible spiritual experience.....ore several small cash prizes and several mundane spiritual experiences.

Or could nothing, no matter how strange or damaging alter your views?

Speaking as a convert to the LDS church, views are easily changed, altered, expanded, diminished, and modified - but conversion into or out-of is not "view" based.

Lost Mystic wrote:
When presented with reasonable evidence, shouldn't we re-examine our position and change? And be willing to change as new things come to light?

We should, but bias comes into play and can affect how we see the evidence. Many members have a lot of bias because accepting the evidence can mean a lot of pain in ones life. This makes it unlikely that most members will be able to see and accept the evidence for what it is. Whats interesting is that for those who have learned about these things, we hardly see any who convert to the LDS, and many who lose or change their beliefs in regards to LDS truth claims.

subgenius wrote:

Lost Mystic wrote:First off, I want to acknowledge that I am aware that everyone has biases, a unique framework of viewing existence and all of that.

then why is what follows contrary to that? "reasonable evidence" assumes that something exists as truth outside of what you describe here, correct?

We need some framework to find common ground on. What is truth? I guess I'm hoping to use commonalities we agree on through scientific advancements, conclusions verified or largely supported with peer-reviewed scrutinization...

For instance, whereas the earth was once believed to be flat, advancements in discovery and researched changed this belief.

But for those LDS apologists on the board, did you ever waiver in your belief when you discovered certain things that appear to discredit your beliefs? Do you ever feel that you are working too hard to have things make sense in your world view?

i often waiver in what i believe, but what i "know" is a different matter.

How do you personally define the difference between what you believe and what you know?

Speaking as a convert to the LDS church, views are easily changed, altered, expanded, diminished, and modified - but conversion into or out-of is not "view" based.

What do you state it is based on then? I'm curious because I too was a convert into the church, but now I left...so I apparently have a little more experience in the latter...but perhaps we are just dissecting meanings of words too fine.

Lost Mystic wrote:I know this is my personal perception. Part of the reason I have this view is because of the internal battle I waged when I was a TBM. My internal apologist was working overtime shoving things inside of a box. Once the box broke, things made much more sense to me.

Then your experiences led you to a different conclusion.

Lost Mystic wrote:I guess it all comes down to the personal "spiritual experience"...once it reaches that point, discussion gets diluted.

True, you can't realistically prove it didn't happen and since I can't share it with you beyond a trite description. There isn't much to discuss.

I can't deny that you may have had a spiritual experience. I could chalk it up to chemical reactions and such, but that would become my assumption.

If it were just one experience I'd judge it the same way. The problem is there have been at least hundreds if not thousands of them.

The Nehor wrote:
If it were just one experience I'd judge it the same way. The problem is there have been at least hundreds if not thousands of them.

I think we both know he did not limit it to one expereince, and since chemistry in the brain creating the experience means one can expereince it thousands of times.

Themis wrote:I think we both know he did not limit it to one expereince,

I did not know that. I have never chatted with him/her so have no idea.

and since chemistry in the brain creating the experience means one can expereince it thousands of times.

That hypothesis works until you factor in at times knowing the future. Then you need a more complex explanation.