Top 100 Reasons why GBH is smiling...

[_Daniel Peterson]

Your error here is in assuming that I've denied that I believe something that I have announced I believe.

I've denied that I believe something that you have announced I believe.

That's different.

You've never understood my position correctly. I've told you that before. It's never done any good to tell you that. It probably won't do any good now. But it might help some others. That's why I've taken the trouble to show up here.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Tal,
I don’t believe that an ability to know one thing necessitates that you must have an ability to know all things (which almost seems to be what you're proposing these "Mormon defenders" hold to). by the way Tal, would you mind providing an example for me that “some Mormon defenders imply, or state out[ ]rightly, that things cannot be known to be true.” I’ve never run into this line of reasoning and it seems to fly in the face of a very basic tenet of Mormonism... unless they were speaking of two different types of “knowledge” (i.e. spiritual/emotional vs. intellectual [some might not like the fact that I hold those two in separate regards])

[_why me]

[size=14][color=darkblue]Hi Tarski

May I suggest that the defensibility, or indefensibility, of these claims per se is not the point here.

Two points are relevant. The first point is that some Mormon apologists, in defending a religion which claims that there is a surefire way for people to "KNOW" [and to hear GAs and testimony meeting participants tell it, "know beyond a shadow of a doubt'] that it is "true", base their defense arguments on claims that such knowledge is not possible, or at least, that it is not clear that such knowledge is possible. The second point is that this a counterproductive argument for Mormonism. To summarize it:

Mormonism claims that one can know Mormonism to be true;

Some Mormon defenders imply, or state outrightly, that things cannot be known to be true.

That is, I submit, a counterproductive argument. To paraphrase Hinckley himself, either we can know things, or we cannot. If we can, (logically) it is possible that we could know Mormonism to be true. But if we cannot, then we could never know Mormonism to be true. So it seems to me that the only chance Mormon apologists have is to begin by positing that things can be known.

By the way, I'm not really sure how someone denying they believe something which they have announced they believe is anything other than indicative of a change of opinion, or of a deeply confused state. If there is a change of opinion, I don't see why that shouldn't be announced; because if it isn't a change of opinion, observers will have every reason to infer deep confusion. In any case, perhaps this topic should be on its own thread. Seems like my Top 100 list is destined for oblivion no matter what!

For many Mormons, spiritual knowledge are known to be true according to the holy spirit. For the LDS, the Book of Mormon is truth because the holy spirit has testified as to its truthfulness. If this did not happen, I am afraid that Mormonism would have never gotten off the ground. For the Book of Mormon to issue such a challenge is rather unique. Lets face it, if Joseph Smith or SR wrote the book and put such a sentence in the book, it would signify a bold claim. However, if it was put into the book by a prophet working through god, then the sentence in Moroni would make perfect sense. Now I have said either here or on Mad that many exers or postmos did feel the spirit at one time. It was strong and powerful. And that has made all the difference in their lives. What to do? However, thanks for the intellectual post. But in the realm of the spirit, intellectualism may come up short.

[_why me]

Your error here is in assuming that I've denied that I believe something that I have announced I believe.

I've denied that I believe something that you have announced I believe.

That's different.

You've never understood my position correctly. I've told you that before. It's never done any good to tell you that. It probably won't do any good now. But it might help some others. That's why I've taken the trouble to show up here.

The problem is more centered in what exactly Tal wants to hear and how he offers his own interpretion. I am afraid Dan, your viewpoint unless it is suitable to the countermormons, will be misunderstood intentionally. It seems to be needed for it to be so.

[_silentkid]

That's why I've taken the trouble to show up here.

C'mon. This is an internet message board. I can't be that much trouble to log on and post a few sentences. I know a lot of people give you grief about your apologetics. I think it's great that you've decided to post here and perhaps clear up some issues. I just feel bad that you consider this board such a chore to visit. There are a lot of great posters here. There are high points and low points. Relax and enjoy your stay.

[_Some Schmo]

I just feel bad that you consider this board such a chore to visit.

I think you misunderstand. I don't think it was ever a chore for him to visit. Posting was the problem, not visiting.

And what might actually make it a chore is knowing that what he says won't be protected by the mods around here. It's no fun for Danny-boy if people get to talk back.

[_John Larsen]

For many Mormons, spiritual knowledge are known to be true according to the holy spirit. For the LDS, the Book of Mormon is truth because the holy spirit has testified as to its truthfulness. If this did not happen, I am afraid that Mormonism would have never gotten off the ground.

This argument makes no sense. You seem to be saying that Mormonism could only be successful if it was true. What about all of the successful untrue religions, such as [insert other religion here]?

Now I have said either here or on Mad that many exers or postmos did feel the spirit at one time. It was strong and powerful. And that has made all the difference in their lives. What to do? However, thanks for the intellectual post. But in the realm of the spirit, intellectualism may come up short.

As an ex Mormon I think of the spirit like Santa visiting my house on Christmas. While it is true that I did once believe that Santa visited my house, I have since learned that Santa does not exist and the presents appearing can be explained by a more naturalistic phenomena : my parents. It is true that as a child I felt an affection for Santa, but it was a false feeling, although it felt real to me. The fact remains that Santa is imaginary. Ex Mormons had an experience they contextualized as "feeling the spirit". Many know understand what that was and why it happened.

John

[Guest]

For many Mormons, spiritual knowledge are known to be true according to the holy spirit. For the LDS, the Book of Mormon is truth because the holy spirit has testified as to its truthfulness. If this did not happen, I am afraid that Mormonism would have never gotten off the ground.

This argument makes no sense. You seem to be saying that Mormonism could only be successful if it was true. What about all of the successful untrue religions, such as [insert other religion here]?

Now I have said either here or on Mad that many exers or postmos did feel the spirit at one time. It was strong and powerful. And that has made all the difference in their lives. What to do? However, thanks for the intellectual post. But in the realm of the spirit, intellectualism may come up short.

As an ex Mormon I think of the spirit like Santa visiting my house on Christmas. While it is true that I did once believe that Santa visited my house, I have since learned that Santa does not exist and the presents appearing can be explained by a more naturalistic phenomena : my parents. It is true that as a child I felt an affection for Santa, but it was a false feeling, although it felt real to me. The fact remains that Santa is imaginary. Ex Mormons had an experience they contextualized as "feeling the spirit". Many know understand what that was and why it happened.

John

Why me writes:
The Book of Mormon makes a claim. People seek the holy ghost on that claim. The holy ghost bears a powerful witness as to its truthfulness. This has made all the difference. If no spirit feeling was felt, there would be no church as it is today. The church would have fallen long ago. The church is not about Joseph Smith but about the holy ghost and the spiritual witness that people receive when praying. True, you can rationalize it away as a santa feeling but that doesn't change the feeling that you received as a church member. When you were active if someone would have given your explanation for that feeling that you felt you would have laughed in their faces. Now, however, you can validate yourself by equating that feeling to santa clause.

For Joseph Smith or Sidney to write such a thing in a book, shows guts if not foolishness. In truth if I authored such a book I would have left it out. And I would have canned the book before publication. Joseph Smith would have been more successful without the book. He would have founded a flourishing protestant sect if only the Bible was preached. But of course, this was not god's plan for the world. The Book of Mormon brought nothing but hardship to Joseph Smith.

[_Tarski]

Hi Tarski

May I suggest that the defensibility, or indefensibility, of these claims per se is not the point here.

Two points are relevant. The first point is that some Mormon apologists, in defending a religion which claims that there is a surefire way for people to "KNOW" [and to hear GAs and testimony meeting participants tell it, "know beyond a shadow of a doubt'] that it is "true", base their defense arguments on claims that such knowledge is not possible, or at least, that it is not clear that such knowledge is possible. The second point is that this a counterproductive argument for Mormonism. To summarize it:

Mormonism claims that one can know Mormonism to be true;

Some Mormon defenders imply, or state outrightly, that things cannot be known to be true.

That is, I submit, a counterproductive argument. To paraphrase Hinckley himself, either we can know things, or we cannot. If we can, (logically) it is possible that we could know Mormonism to be true. But if we cannot, then we could never know Mormonism to be true. So it seems to me that the only chance Mormon apologists have is to begin by positing that things can be known.

By the way, I'm not really sure how someone denying they believe something which they have announced they believe is anything other than indicative of a change of opinion, or of a deeply confused state. If there is a change of opinion, I don't see why that shouldn't be announced; because if it isn't a change of opinion, observers will have every reason to infer deep confusion. In any case, perhaps this topic should be on its own thread. Seems like my Top 100 list is destined for oblivion no matter what!

I'm a big fan of yours, Tarski, so if you find a flaw in my reasoning here, lay it on me, I'm all ears.

The way I look at it is this; the talk about knowing or not knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt a social or linguistic phenomenon and is a colloquial expression of the depth of the feeling of being convinced. People who have thought about knowledge in a more philosophical way are less likely to insist on such language and will admitt that they don't know in any philosophical or even scientific sense.
I am not taking you to task for your epistemology. I am thinking about tactics. I am wondering why you don't interpret DCPs language in a more charitable way?
For a more extreme example, suppose that I say "I just know that something bad will happen if I get on that plane".
Will you take me to task for using the word know improperly or will you take me to task for being superstitious or something? Probably you will be more interested in calming my fears or something.
Similarly, when a religious person says they know something of a religious nature is true, everyone (maybe even including the religious person) knows the issue is only secondarily one of epistemology. How often does demanding that the person doesn't really have such knowledge move the discussion along?
When I was a believer someone might have said something like that to me and I would have just said "yeah, OK. I don't technically know that church is true but I have a strong sense that it is true and though I can't prove it, I believe that this is due to the Holy Ghost. Call me irrational- I don't care" . I would never say such things now of course.

What changed my mind was exposure to evidence and new ideas. But even that might not have been enough if the Mormon church had been working for me emotionally.
We all will rationalize until there is a mental shift for whatever reason.

But, I was also wondering about the level of distain. I think about the fact that my father might argue for the church in ways similar to DCP. I doen't agree with my father's arguments but I don't have distain for him. In fact I have respect.
So, even if he seems to appeal to epistemological relativism and then seems to do the opposite, I don't see why this calls for terminology such as "loser".

[_John Larsen]

The Book of Mormon makes a claim. People seek the holy ghost on that claim. The holy ghost bears a powerful witness as to its truthfulness. This has made all the difference. If no spirit feeling was felt, there would be no church as it is today. The church would have fallen long ago.

Again you have used as a proof of the Book of Mormon the Church's survival. But I do not buy this. Many "false" churches have survived and thrived. On what grounds can you make this claim? How can you say that the Church would have not been successful if it were not true? Can you please provide me the arguments that support this claim?

John