Debating Mormonism - Is it Worth the Energy?

[_Roger Morrison]

Ray, you well express my own sentiments. Without my LDS experience i could not understand it as i do. It added tremendously to the immature, socially deprived and inept person i was in my 20s. Whether my perceptions are sharper now, or jaded, in some/many respects LDSism is not what it once was, to me. I think the "Correlation Program" was the beginning of the end of individualism, as i first experienced, and thrived within it...

Is this site worth my energy? Certainly, or i wouldn't be here. Admittedly there are 'dull-times' but there's enough of a balance that satisfies/entertains my time. As someone above said about "arguements". They simply reveal the persons involved, seldom with little but amusement. We're all where we are with justification, until our justification changes... As with Wade, whom i see as a guy who has changed measurably--to the good :-) Discussions, on the other hand, i look forward to. Unfortunately i tend to have difficulty letting go sometimes. So thanks to all for your patience...

Non here who i would not LUV to break-bread with. It's a GREAT COMMUNITY! Thanks to, Doc Inc! Warm regards, Roger

[_Runtu]

Ray, you well express my own sentiments. Without my LDS experience i could not understand it as i do. It added tremendously to the immature, socially deprived and inept person i was in my 20s. Whether my perceptions are sharper now, or jaded, in some/many respects LDSism is not what it once was, to me. I think the "Correlation Program" was the beginning of the end of individualism, as i first experienced, and thrived within it...

Is this site worth my energy? Certainly, or i wouldn't be here. Admittedly there are 'dull-times' but there's enough of a balance that satisfies/entertains my time. As someone above said about "arguements". They simply reveal the persons involved, seldom with little but amusement. We're all where we are with justification, until our justification changes... As with Wade, whom i see as a guy who has changed measurably--to the good :-) Discussions, on the other hand, i look forward to. Unfortunately i tend to have difficulty letting go sometimes. So thanks to all for your patience...

Non here who i would not LUV to break-bread with. It's a GREAT COMMUNITY! Thanks to, Doc Inc! Warm regards, Roger

Agreed. Honestly, I like everyone here, even those with whom I disagree completely. As for the church, yes, I would not be who I am without the influence of the church. I've learned to keep the good and learn from the bad. I was like you in submersing my individuality, and it worked well for me until I figured out the big picture.

I've stopped arguing, I think. At least I hope I have.

[_Mister Scratch]

I tried, but you left the discussion.

The hell I did. You are too much of a moron and a mule-eared ninny to understand some very simple concepts, so why should I even bother dealing with you at all? You are spouting utter nonsense such as "The Holy Ghost is REAL!!!" As if it is real in the same sense as the chair you are sitting in. If you cannot make the very basic distinction between spiritual and material, then what is the point in talking to you at all?

Go back and look at the thread Scrath, you left off by asking me a question, to which I responded.

Yes, and I was satisfied with your answer.... How does that constitute "leaving the discussion"?

And if you go back and read all of our discussions, it is you who lack basic understanding of beliefs.

I disagree. In fact, you have yet to demonstrate anywhere that you understand scripture and doctrine beyond the very brief, bullet-point, Mormonism for Dummies-level of exegesis. If you offer up no proof that you understand, how can you very well be regarded as having authority to judge anyone else?

I don't say this as an insult, just as a statement of fact.

Right. I don't say that you don't understand the scriptures as an insult, just as a statement of fact. by the way, Gaz: has anyone ever accused you of cleaving to a "holier than thou" attitude? For a guy who claims all this superior spirituality (implicit in your judgmentalism), you sure are lacking in humility...

Of cource the Holy Ghost is real, So is the Father and Jesus Christ. The Holy Ghost actually makes an appearance in the Book of Mormon to Nephi, as a man (discrediting the idea that the Holy Ghost may be the Heavenly Mother, a claim some Kabbalah-ists make) This passage is found in 1 Nephi 11:11.

See? More lack of comprehension on your part. How do you know whether or not this visitation is "real" in a material sense? Was this a spiritual vision? Or an actual, real, physical, material occurrence?

I know the Holy Ghost is real because I received a witness from Him.

Again I ask you: Was this "real" in the material sense? Did you physically see the HG? Did you shake his hand? Did he touch you on your arm?

Or did you merely get a warm fuzzy?

I invite you to do the same, because until then you will remain on unsteady ground in regards to what you know is true. There is a reason that the first thing missionaries do is invite people to pray about the Book of Mormon. You need a foundation to build a house of faith on.

Gaz, I suggest that you read the thread begun by Beastie entitled "Cinepro's excellent adventure." I would be very, very interested in hearing your thoughts on that thread, since it pertains to what you and I have been discussing.

[_Gazelam]

Gazelam wrote:

I know the Holy Ghost is real because I received a witness from Him. I invite you to do the same, because until then you will remain on unsteady ground in regards to what you know is true. There is a reason that the first thing missionaries do is invite people to pray about the Book of Mormon. You need a foundation to build a house of faith on.

Gaz, this statement of yours involves the same circular logic that you always use. I called you on it before, some time ago. and you never responded to explain how it wasn't circular. If circular, it really doesn't prove what you think it does.

Please explain. How is circular logic anything on which one can build a foundation?

All I can say is that you either know who the Holy Ghost is and how he works , or you don't. Gramps, in your time in the church, did oyu ever feel the Holy Ghost when someone taught a true principle? Can you read JS-H 1:8-17 and not have the Holy Ghost witnes to you that it is true? The Holy Ghost is not a simple emotion that you can make yourself feel. Was there never a time in the church when you were active that you felt his inspiration? What did you base your testimony on at that time?

[_Gazelam]

I disagree with a number of things you said above, and responding to any number of them would be flogging a dead horse.

I'll look into the thread you mentioned, and hopefully can add something to the discussion there.

[_gramps]

Gazelam wrote:

I know the Holy Ghost is real because I received a witness from Him. I invite you to do the same, because until then you will remain on unsteady ground in regards to what you know is true. There is a reason that the first thing missionaries do is invite people to pray about the Book of Mormon. You need a foundation to build a house of faith on.

Gaz, this statement of yours involves the same circular logic that you always use. I called you on it before, some time ago. and you never responded to explain how it wasn't circular. If circular, it really doesn't prove what you think it does.

Please explain. How is circular logic anything on which one can build a foundation?

All I can say is that you either know who the Holy Ghost is and how he works , or you don't. Gramps, in your time in the church, did oyu ever feel the Holy Ghost when someone taught a true principle? Can you read JS-H 1:8-17 and not have the Holy Ghost witnes to you that it is true? The Holy Ghost is not a simple emotion that you can make yourself feel. Was there never a time in the church when you were active that you felt his inspiration? What did you base your testimony on at that time?

Hi Gaz. Thanks for your response and your questions.

Yes, when I was a active, believing Mormon I felt “the witness of the Spirit.” I identified those feelings, impressions and “pure strokes of intelligence” just as you do now, as witnesses of the truth through the medium of the Holy Ghost.

I came to believe that they are, however, not a reliable way to know the truth of anything. It seems quite clear to me now that these witnesses can be manufactured. When one experiences such a witness, the witness is then given meaning by what one has been taught them to mean.

Anyone who served a mission knows how this is done. I had a great Zone Leader, while I was still a District Leader. He was from Australia and was extremely charismatic. When our Zone had investigator meetings, he would stand in front of us all and tell the First Vision story and it was powerful. The Spirit was literally tangible, at times. The air was dripping with the Spirit.

Later on, I was able to produce the same experience when I told the story. Other missionaries were unable to do this. I remember one time my companion and I taught a family and I gave the First Vision discussion. I could feel the Spirit come into the room and witness the truth of the story. I asked the investigators how they felt; what they were experiencing. They told me I should become an actor. They said it was a great performance and, of course, they felt something. Why shouldn’t they, they inquired. They were impressed. They did not believe, however, that it had anything to do with truth verification. I began to ponder a lot during the rest of my mission on just what was happening in these types of situations.

Now, fast forward to when the Paul H. Dunn story surfaced. I am not going to revisit all the stories he told. What I am interested in, however, is the comment to Packer’s story by Lawrence Young, who was at that time an assistant professor of sociology at Brigham Young University. In commenting on the Paul H. Dunn fiasco, he had this to say:

ELDER PAUL H. DUNN UTILIZED FABRICATIONS IN constructing his charisma and reputation. Intentional or not, his fabrications brought both enhanced income and status. Nevertheless, his fabrications served as a structured pathway to religious commitment and experience for many people. As I reflect upon the messages in the Paul Dunn incident, I am unable to leave this central fact-fabrications can function as structured pathways to spirituality within religious communities.

Elder Dunn's fabrications illustrate at least two aspects of the relationship between religious experience and religious myth. First, the symbols and stories which lead to religious experience need not be factually correct. Second, the symbols and stories can be dispensed by someone who knows that "fact" or "truth" is being misrepresented by the symbols and stories.

He further states:

Elder Dunn's fabrications also illustrate that just because religious commitment and experience exist within an individual or community, that does not establish the ultimate truth of the symbols and stories used to produce that religious commitment and experience. If we equate religious commitment and experience with the acquisition of religious truth, we are entering suspect terrain unless we limit our notion of truth to something other than the ultimate factual grounding of the symbols and stories which produced the religious commitment and experience.

Typically, the sense of ultimacy associated with religious experience leads one to conclude that the symbols and stories which produced the experience should also be assigned the status of ultimacy. However, if we are willing to accept that the religious experiences produced by Elder Dunn's storytelling were not fraudulent experiences, then we must also acknowledge that the ability of symbols and stories to function as structured pathways to the beyond has little to do with the historical accuracy of the symbols and stories or the basic honesty of the storyteller. Of course, this relationship between religious experience and myth (i.e., symbols and stories) has interesting implications for how exclusive we can be in judging the authenticity of other faith communities.

And, finally, this:

The important lesson of the Paul Dunn case has relatively little to do with the gossip surrounding specific aspects of his fabrications. Suffice it to say that one of the most charismatic and visible Church leaders of the 1960s and 1970s was less than honest in his dealings with Church members. Nevertheless, his storytelling functioned to create commitment and religious experience. The recent revelations concerning Paul Dunn's misrepresentations over the past several decades illustrate the rather loose connection between moral and ethical principles and the possibility of religious experience. If individuals believe in the legitimacy of a particular pathway to religious experience, the moral and ethical soundness of the origin of that pathway is not a critical factor in determining whether a breakthrough to the beyond is produced.

(emphasis mine)

Edited to add: I don't seem to be able to get the link posted in here. You just google Dunn, Stories, Packer, Sunstone. That should do it.

So, we go back to my earlier point. One can feel the Spirit. I think this is without question true. But, the meaning we ascribe to that experience is determined by what we are taught those experiences should mean. And more importantly, we can have these experiences, whether or not the story or meaning which we bring to this experience is factual or not.

This is why I do not trust such experiences as indicators of truth. They are indicators of something, to be sure, but not truth. That is why I do feel that other faith communities experience the truth in their witnessing to each other, in their Bible study groups, in their personal prayers to their God. Just as the Mormons do. The Mormon experience is not unique in this regard. The FLDS, as well as, the other offshoots of Nauvoo Mormonism, follow the same direction to attaining this witness of the spirit as do the Brighamites.

Are you trying to tell me that their experiences of the Spirit are somehow not truth validations, but the Brighamites’ experiences are?

And how would you know? by the witness of the Spirit? (Do you not see the circularity here?)

So Gaz, you see, we come full circle as to why the reliance on the Spirit is not a strong foundation in determining the truth claims of anything, yet alone Mormonism.

Do you not see at all how your reliance on the Spirit is faulty for determining truth claims?

I am not saying that you shouldn’t rely on them. I am certainly not saying that you don’t experience them. Belief is a choice. And you choose to believe that the experiences of the spirit are witnesses of the Mormon truth. I do not. And for good reason, I believe.

Go ahead. Knock yourself out. But, they really are not witness of anything which you claim them to be.

[_ldsguy]

I feel that it's a waste of energy. Several years ago I started reading the Mormonism debate board on beliefnet.com. I was impressed by the arguments made for and against. You might even say I had my faith shaken because of some of the aruments presented. Unfortunately I haven't very much time to compose arguments of my own, and so I never did participate much. I mostly observed the methods used by those who were posting, and I have to say I was impressed by some people, and embarrassed for some people, and that goes for people on both sides of the argument.

It mostly has left me pondering issues such as people's motivations for having the debate, what they get out of it, etc... I've even started pondering how most of the arguments can be applied to any two religions, or any two belief systems, and those arguments are being had on other discussion boards all over the internet.

A good expense of energy would be to focus on common ground. I believe it is possible for two people with defferent opinions to have a discussion, and come away mutually edified. But if the goal is to discuss the differences and argue about who is right, then it will be an argument, people will feel attacked, hurt, and become angry. It all spirals out of control.

[_Roger Morrison]

Welcome aboard, ldsguy! I get the feeling You can, if you will, be a good influence in the group... You said:

A good expense of energy would be to focus on common ground. I believe it is possible for two people with defferent opinions to have a discussion, and come away mutually edified. But if the goal is to discuss the differences and argue about who is right, then it will be an argument, people will feel attacked, hurt, and become angry. It all spirals out of control.

I heartily concure... Though not always easy to keep things on the higher plane, i have had some really good exchanges here. What are your topic interests? Convert? RM? Demographic? Etc???? Looking forward to reading You... Warm regards, Roger

[_Runtu]

I feel that it's a waste of energy. Several years ago I started reading the Mormonism debate board on beliefnet.com. I was impressed by the arguments made for and against. You might even say I had my faith shaken because of some of the aruments presented. Unfortunately I haven't very much time to compose arguments of my own, and so I never did participate much. I mostly observed the methods used by those who were posting, and I have to say I was impressed by some people, and embarrassed for some people, and that goes for people on both sides of the argument.

It mostly has left me pondering issues such as people's motivations for having the debate, what they get out of it, etc... I've even started pondering how most of the arguments can be applied to any two religions, or any two belief systems, and those arguments are being had on other discussion boards all over the internet.

A good expense of energy would be to focus on common ground. I believe it is possible for two people with defferent opinions to have a discussion, and come away mutually edified. But if the goal is to discuss the differences and argue about who is right, then it will be an argument, people will feel attacked, hurt, and become angry. It all spirals out of control.

I agree with you. I would think it beneficial for believers to understand why we who have left no longer believe, and it would also benefit us to lose the animosity towards believers (speaking generally). I think one thing that has always surprised me is how believers really don't understand that we know exactly what it's like to be believers. We were just like you, but now on opposite sides of the fence, we see each other as very different indeed. And that's not right.

[_ldsguy]

I would think it beneficial for believers to understand why we who have left no longer believe, and it would also benefit us to lose the animosity towards believers (speaking generally). I think one thing that has always surprised me is how believers really don't understand that we know exactly what it's like to be believers. We were just like you, but now on opposite sides of the fence, we see each other as very different indeed. And that's not right.

My brother left the church. I don't how it has been for him. I do know he jokingly said to us once, that he's not an evil version of the brother we knew. But in my mind I've always thought that the comment would have only been said if he felt like that's what we thought. He's 14 years older than me, was moved out by the time I gained sentience, so we've never been really close anyway. I can't speak for members of my family, but I think he's great fun and I'm just really happy that he no longer feels that a certain kind of life is being forced on him. My big surprise in meeting people online was stories from people about how poorly they are treated when they leave. It's very hard to understand how members could justify actions that contradict the peace of the Gospel.