Three Questions (Split from, ‘Vogel Responds …’)

[honorentheos]

Effectively, MG is providing us with multiple arguments all saying "Don't think critically about the claims of the church. Accept them and then the problematic issues won't seem as bad."

My point is that we can ride a bicycle and chew gum at the same time. I’m not talking about displacement or ignoring…or even referring…to one source exclusively over another. What I’m saying, and what has worked for me, is trying to keep an objective balance between sources and NOT excluding one over the other.

To what end? To find the truth and then be able to act on it? Or to maintain the possibility of the existence of a creator god? If the latter, why is that of greater priority than wishing to find the truth?

[Marcus]

Yesterday...

And again, one chooses the sources of what is consumed as they read books and articles that refer to these issues and others that could be mentioned. There are various ways that so called issues can be interpreted by those that write the historical narratives.

Some are positive, some are negative, and some are more neutral in their positions.

And it’s all in the eye of the beholder. What is important is to use primary sources rather than looking at sources written by authors that may have prejudice one way or the other.

The Joseph Smith Papers project vs. something written by a third party who simply concludes, “Joseph was a scoundrel”, is preferable as source information…in my estimation....

Hon points out issues:

Effectively, MG is providing us with multiple arguments all saying "Don't think critically about the claims of the church. Accept them and then the problematic issues won't seem as bad."

Which results in the adjusted (and completely different) opinion of today...

...I’m not talking about displacement or ignoring…or even referring…to one source exclusively over another. What I’m saying, and what has worked for me, is trying to keep an objective balance between sources and NOT excluding one over the other....

The whiplash must be exhausting.

[MG 2.0]

Yesterday...

And again, one chooses the sources of what is consumed as they read books and articles that refer to these issues and others that could be mentioned. There are various ways that so called issues can be interpreted by those that write the historical narratives.

Some are positive, some are negative, and some are more neutral in their positions.

And it’s all in the eye of the beholder. What is important is to use primary sources rather than looking at sources written by authors that may have prejudice one way or the other.

The Joseph Smith Papers project vs. something written by a third party who simply concludes, “Joseph was a scoundrel”, is preferable as source information…in my estimation....

Hon points out issues:

Effectively, MG is providing us with multiple arguments all saying "Don't think critically about the claims of the church. Accept them and then the problematic issues won't seem as bad."

Which results in the adjusted (and completely different) opinion of today...

...I’m not talking about displacement or ignoring…or even referring…to one source exclusively over another. What I’m saying, and what has worked for me, is trying to keep an objective balance between sources and NOT excluding one over the other....

The whiplash must be exhausting.

No adjustment. My statements yesterday dovetail with my statements of today. I know I have to keep repeating myself, but a poster or two makes it necessary to do so.

Context. Context. Context.

Frame of reference.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

My point is that we can ride a bicycle and chew gum at the same time. I’m not talking about displacement or ignoring…or even referring…to one source exclusively over another. What I’m saying, and what has worked for me, is trying to keep an objective balance between sources and NOT excluding one over the other.

To what end? To find the truth and then be able to act on it? Or to maintain the possibility of the existence of a creator god? If the latter, why is that of greater priority than wishing to find the truth?

The two are not mutually exclusive. I can ride a bicycle and chew gum at the same time. Priorities can coexist.

The Sorites Principle dictates, at least to me, that one should never be in a hurry to make an absolute judgement when variables/factors are subject to change at an alarmingly slow rate.

Regards,
MG

[honorentheos]

To what end? To find the truth and then be able to act on it? Or to maintain the possibility of the existence of a creator god? If the latter, why is that of greater priority than wishing to find the truth?

The two are not mutually exclusive. I can ride a bicycle and chew gum at the same time. Priorities can coexist.

The Sorites Principle dictates, at least to me, that one should never be in a hurry to make an absolute judgement when variables/factors are subject to change at an alarmingly slow rate.

Regards,
MG

You're arguing that folks should not join the LDS church until the evidence becomes a heap in support of the church, then? Until then they have too much to lose by converting based on the current state of the evidence? Or do you think this only applies to folks questioning the church claims as a member?

[Marcus]

Yesterday...
Hon points out issues:

Which results in the adjusted (and completely different) opinion of today...

The whiplash must be exhausting.

No adjustment. My statements yesterday dovetail with my statements of today...

Lol. No, they don't.

[Marcus]

...The Sorites Principle dictates, at least to me, that one should never be in a hurry to make an absolute judgement when variables/factors are subject to change at an alarmingly slow rate...

Um...are you sure you have thought that one through? Including all the parts of your statement?

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

...The Sorites Principle dictates, at least to me, that one should never be in a hurry to make an absolute judgement when variables/factors are subject to change at an alarmingly slow rate...

Um...are you sure you have thought that one through? Including all the parts of your statement?

@MG - good Lord, man. Please, for the love all that is holy, explain just how the heck Mormonism can at all rightly fall under the Sorites paradox?

Just when I think a Mormon can't possibly get any more absurd ...

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Um...are you sure you have thought that one through? Including all the parts of your statement?

@MG - good Lord, man. Please, for the love all that is holy, explain just how the heck Mormonism can at all rightly fall under the Sorites paradox?

Just when I think a Mormon can't possibly get any more absurd ...

[MG 2.0]

...The Sorites Principle dictates, at least to me, that one should never be in a hurry to make an absolute judgement when variables/factors are subject to change at an alarmingly slow rate...

Um...are you sure you have thought that one through? Including all the parts of your statement?

In my mind this simply means that patience is an important factor in living the gospel and gaining knowledge of truth. Conversion is a natural accumulation of experience, knowledge, and wisdom.

Regards,
MG