Three possibilities for the head in hat.

[_mentalgymnast]

Hey MG...

Good question. First, give me a list of those groups that claim to be the "one and only" and then itemize those "difficult beliefs" attached to each one so that we have something specifically work with. While you're at it, list the difficult historical issues associated with each one of these groups that would make it difficult/unreasonable to accept their basic doctrines/teachings up front, or the more advanced doctrines later. Your question is somewhat vague in the sense that you seem to be making the assumption that there are a large number of organizations out there that fall under your hypothetical umbrella. Also, difficult beliefs are one thing...to each his own. But difficult historical issues that would act as a stumbling block to accepting the difficult beliefs are something else. Joseph Smith's shortcomings are an example of such. I'm especially interested in your second list.

I do not think any of this matters.

I think it does. You're saying x=y. Do you know for a fact that you're right? I'm asking you to verify that your direct comparison of the church with other organizations holds water and is accurate. Your conclusion may be assailable if it is based on a false premise.

I guess we're at a stalemate unless you're willing to pony up. The totality of the truth claims and history of the LDS church are unique. We've been down this road before. <smile>

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

MG - If the church is true, then why is learning how the Book of Mormon was actually translated rather than a Mormon version of an urban legend a "stumbling block"?

And has it really registered with you that your determination to continue believing in Mormonism has led you to believe in magic rocks?

There are many...are you one of them?...that would find stories of magic rocks and treasure lore somewhat distracting and troubling during the process of missionary discussions (I probably would have). If an investigator hits an impasse, they may choose to discontinue their investigation, which could then result in non acceptance of baptism and living/making the covenants of the gospel.

Believing in magic rocks only makes sense to me if the source of magic is God. Otherwise, I think the whole thing would definitely be kind of hokey.

Regards,
MG

[_Chap]

I think mentalgymnast is derailing here, and perhaps I gave him the chance to do it with my reference to the investigator having to make a decision in a limited time in front of the missionaries. Here is what seems to have happened:

Tarski gives three possibilities for what Joseph Smith was doing with his head in a hat with a rock in it.

MG suggests we need to consider a fourth possibility - God was really channelling scripture to Joseph Smith through the rock.

Mercury says that is a fantasy only a sucker would believe in.

MG says, in effect, that maybe it could be right - how can Mercury be logically sure that it isn't?

Chap points out the difference between the basis for being sure in (say) a geometrical argument, where absolute certainty is a reasonable requirement, and the basis for being sure in the ordinary but important decisions we have to make daily, with limited evidence and limited time to make them in. In that context, it is reasonable and prudent to write off an explanation that involves extremely implausible events, such as God using magic rocks to channel scripture to treasure-seeking swindlers. Someone who accepts such an explanation is indeed by any normal criteria, a sucker.

MG then starts talking, in effect, about 'milk before meat'. After a bit of back and forth, he thinks he can claim a stalemate (he certainly can't win the match, and knows it).

But there is no stalemate.

Only a very small proportion of persons raised outside the LDS church would waste their time by giving the 'God used a rock in a hat' story five minutes' further serious consideration after it had been explained to them once. To do so would require one to have such a level of credulity and such a weak sense of what is likely that the title 'sucker' would certainly be merited. If you can believe that kind of thing, you can believe in spaceships hiding behind comets, alien abductions ... the lot. You are, by any of the standards applied by normal cautious persons in their everyday lives, a sucker. No contest.

[_truth dancer]

Hey MG...

We'll I don't really feel like writing 25 dissertations on various cults and religions so how about we just take Scientology for example. ;-)

When a Scientologist friend first discussed his religion with me, he didn't mention anything at all that was odd or strange. He didn't discuss the many beliefs that some would consider strange or unusual. He told me about the peace, the strength, the truth. He "bore his testimony" of the truth of his new beliefs, told me how fabulous it was for his family. Truly had me believing that he had happened onto something amazing and wonderful!

Now, as it turns out I did some investigation and learned some of the "meat" and chose not to learn more. Would it have been better to have gone with the milk until I was completely immersed? What if I hadn't learned of the meat?

Do you think it is honest for Scientologists to use the "milk before meat" method of getting people to embrace their beliefs?

Do you think the "milk before meat" method of getting people to believe something is appropriate for anyone (or group) other than the LDS church?

You seem to be suggesting that, unlike anyone else, the milk before meat is fine for the LDS church because it is necessary to believe truth, but would be unacceptable for others? Is this about right?

Again, I would ask, what sort of God needs to resort to such sleazy tactics to get folks to believe truth?

If anything it would seem that the more honest, the more open, the more forthright the MORE one would believe truth from God.

~dancer~

[_Mercury]

by the way, sweeping generalizations are a type of logical fallacy. Sweeping generalizations neglect the fact that nearly every generalization has one exception or more. How can you know that there are not exceptions to your pronouncement?

MY sweeping generalizations? Your first statement was a non sequitor:

"blahblahstoneinhat joedidntlie"

Sounds like you got all your answers fast and easy. Pre-conversion or post-conversion?

Regards,
MG

Huh? I've got an idea. Instead of trying to deconstruct me, get back to the drawing board and squeeze out another turd of a post?

[_beastie]

There are many...are you one of them?...that would find stories of magic rocks and treasure lore somewhat distracting and troubling during the process of missionary discussions (I probably would have). If an investigator hits an impasse, they may choose to discontinue their investigation, which could then result in non acceptance of baptism and living/making the covenants of the gospel.

Believing in magic rocks only makes sense to me if the source of magic is God. Otherwise, I think the whole thing would definitely be kind of hokey.

Magic rocks appeal only to the most wildly superstitious and gullible in our population, MG. THAT is why the LDS church hides it from investigators (and even, to a certain extent, from members). If investigators were taught that Joseph Smith had a magic rock that he used to use to dig for buried treasure - which he never found and claimed that mean ghosts made the treasures slip just out of their reach - and he used that same magic rock to "translate" the Book of Mormon without even LOOKING at the gold plates - of COURSE it would turn almost everyone off immediately. And yet it is the TRUTH.

That is what should give you pause, MG. The fact that the revealing the TRUTH about what happened would be a guarantee of turning off almost every single investigator the church can dig up should give you pause. As well as being willing to believe in magic rocks in order to retain belief.

by the way, I'm certain that anyone who believes in magic rocks believes that some supernatural power bestowed the rock with that supernatural ability. How else did the rock get magic? It just grew that way? So invoking GOD as the bestower of the magic power does little to remove the "hokey" element.

It just strikes me that there is something fundamentally suspicious about claims that require a belief in something like magic rocks. I don't care if the word "religion" or "God" is attached to those claims or not. Those words aren't some "get out of jail free" card.

[_Moniker]

There are many...are you one of them?...that would find stories of magic rocks and treasure lore somewhat distracting and troubling during the process of missionary discussions (I probably would have). If an investigator hits an impasse, they may choose to discontinue their investigation, which could then result in non acceptance of baptism and living/making the covenants of the gospel.

Believing in magic rocks only makes sense to me if the source of magic is God. Otherwise, I think the whole thing would definitely be kind of hokey.

Magic rocks appeal only to the most wildly superstitious and gullible in our population, MG. THAT is why the LDS church hides it from investigators (and even, to a certain extent, from members). If investigators were taught that Joseph Smith had a magic rock that he used to use to dig for buried treasure - which he never found and claimed that mean ghosts made the treasures slip just out of their reach - and he used that same magic rock to "translate" the Book of Mormon without even LOOKING at the gold plates - of COURSE it would turn almost everyone off immediately. And yet it is the TRUTH.

That is what should give you pause, MG. The fact that the revealing the TRUTH about what happened would be a guarantee of turning off almost every single investigator the church can dig up should give you pause. As well as being willing to believe in magic rocks in order to retain belief.

by the way, I'm certain that anyone who believes in magic rocks believes that some supernatural power bestowed the rock with that supernatural ability. How else did the rock get magic? It just grew that way? So invoking GOD as the bestower of the magic power does little to remove the "hokey" element.

It just strikes me that there is something fundamentally suspicious about claims that require a belief in something like magic rocks. I don't care if the word "religion" or "God" is attached to those claims or not. Those words aren't some "get out of jail free" card.

Beastie I think you're absolutely correct when stating that the milk before meat is there for a reason. The Church acknowledges that these beliefs would be hard to swallow by not telling investigators the nitty gritty details. Even more disturbing than the investigators not knowing is the members that are under the impression that some of the truths are actually anti-LDS lies. This lack of full disclosure seems to suggest that the Church does a poor job of even acknowledging this meat to members.

After the PBS documentary weren't there LDS that were upset about the stone in the hat? They thought that it wasn't accurate? I seem to recall that.

[_mentalgymnast]

Hey MG...

We'll I don't really feel like writing 25 dissertations on various cults and religions so how about we just take Scientology for example. ;-)

When a Scientologist friend first discussed his religion with me, he didn't mention anything at all that was odd or strange. He didn't discuss the many beliefs that some would consider strange or unusual. He told me about the peace, the strength, the truth. He "bore his testimony" of the truth of his new beliefs, told me how fabulous it was for his family. Truly had me believing that he had happened onto something amazing and wonderful!

Now, as it turns out I did some investigation and learned some of the "meat" and chose not to learn more. Would it have been better to have gone with the milk until I was completely immersed? What if I hadn't learned of the meat?

Do you think it is honest for Scientologists to use the "milk before meat" method of getting people to embrace their beliefs?

Do you think the "milk before meat" method of getting people to believe something is appropriate for anyone (or group) other than the LDS church?

You seem to be suggesting that, unlike anyone else, the milk before meat is fine for the LDS church because it is necessary to believe truth, but would be unacceptable for others? Is this about right?

Again, I would ask, what sort of God needs to resort to such sleazy tactics to get folks to believe truth?

If anything it would seem that the more honest, the more open, the more forthright the MORE one would believe truth from God.

~dancer~

We've been here before TD. The truth claims of the LDS church are meshed with the truth claims of Christianity, going all the way back to the ancient roots of Christianity, and all that this entails. To compare the LDS "truths" to Scientology "truths" is comparing apples to oranges. Your premise that the LDS church can be compared to the church of Scientology is fruitless when you look/dissect each religious system in detail. You're speaking in generalities. Your milk before meat stuff doesn't hold up if your first premise is faulty.

Next try? Maybe the Catholic Church?

Regards,
MG

[_antishock8]

Believing in magic rocks only makes sense to me if the source of magic is God. Otherwise, I think the whole thing would definitely be kind of hokey.

Wow. That's a quote worth preserving. I really have to start that website, Mormons Say the Darndest Things...

[_mentalgymnast]

There are many...are you one of them?...that would find stories of magic rocks and treasure lore somewhat distracting and troubling during the process of missionary discussions (I probably would have). If an investigator hits an impasse, they may choose to discontinue their investigation, which could then result in non acceptance of baptism and living/making the covenants of the gospel.

Believing in magic rocks only makes sense to me if the source of magic is God. Otherwise, I think the whole thing would definitely be kind of hokey.

Magic rocks appeal only to the most wildly superstitious and gullible in our population, MG. THAT is why the LDS church hides it from investigators (and even, to a certain extent, from members). If investigators were taught that Joseph Smith had a magic rock that he used to use to dig for buried treasure - which he never found and claimed that mean ghosts made the treasures slip just out of their reach - and he used that same magic rock to "translate" the Book of Mormon without even LOOKING at the gold plates - of COURSE it would turn almost everyone off immediately. And yet it is the TRUTH.

That is what should give you pause, MG. The fact that the revealing the TRUTH about what happened would be a guarantee of turning off almost every single investigator the church can dig up should give you pause. As well as being willing to believe in magic rocks in order to retain belief.

by the way, I'm certain that anyone who believes in magic rocks believes that some supernatural power bestowed the rock with that supernatural ability. How else did the rock get magic? It just grew that way? So invoking GOD as the bestower of the magic power does little to remove the "hokey" element.

It just strikes me that there is something fundamentally suspicious about claims that require a belief in something like magic rocks. I don't care if the word "religion" or "God" is attached to those claims or not. Those words aren't some "get out of jail free" card.

If your time on earth had been hundreds of years ago and someone (from the future) handed you an ipod shuffle (the teeny weeny one that holds 1 gig), turned it on to a music track, and put the buds in your ears...can you even imagine what would go through your mind? Magic? Sorcery? What if this scenario was played out using a nano with a picture screen with video images? Would you have an understanding how flash memory works in any detail? If you were to cut open the little ipod, what would you imagine to be inside?

This isn't a perfect analogy. Many analogies aren't. But you may be able to see where I'm going. What is so weird about a magic rock that is powered up by some unseen but real energy source/power?

The weirdness comes from the time and place/culture/technology that we live in. And the fact that under almost all circumstances that we are readily familiar with, rocks don't light up and give messages in textual form. Yes, it would be weird...and that's why it doesn't come up in missionary discussions.

But to say that magic seerstones could not exist is restricting the powers that God has. Hey, if we can come up with flash memory...which it totally amazing...and almost magic to a non-technophile, then God ought to be capable of doing some pretty flashy things too. Wouldn't you think?

Regards,
MG