Exmormon Foundation Conference

[_Pokatator]

If I skipped hunting and my yearly impulses to kill something and found myself in SLC, . . .

You have a yearly impulse to kill something?

I know I put it crudely, but I do and have gone hunting for as long as I can remember. Also hunting does mean killing something.

Anyway God intended us to eat animals or he wouldn't have made them out of meat. (smilie...I know crude again....smilie)

[_harmony]

Anyway God intended us to eat animals or he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

Okay, that made me laugh!

[_solomarineris]

My posting is for the Exmormon Foundation Conference. RfM is irrelevant to me because they are not us. If you have a complaint about RfM, take it to them, not me.

You're right Dianne,
Please accept my apology. I didn't mean to hijack your announcement.
The fact is I would love to hear your sucess stories.
And if I were living in SL, I'd definitely attend everyone of them.
You guys attract the cream of the crop.

[_Dianne Ormond]

Your apology is most gratefully accepted.
And my estimation of you skyrocketed.
Isn't it wonderful to be able to concede in the face of evidence, unlike the church?
I would agree about "cream of the crop". You are most welcome if you can ever make it.
In the meantime, you can listen to the speakers at exmormonfoundation.org. In the right menu, click on 'Conferences', the year, then 'report with audio'.
Thank you for a nice start to my day.

[_Sister Mary Lisa]

I must admit after reading this thread, I look forward to meeting Dianne Ormond at the Exmo Conf.

[_John Larsen]

I must admit after reading this thread, I look forward to meeting Dianne Ormond at the Exmo Conf.

I can tell you from personal experience that it is impossible not to be charmed by Dianne.

[_Sister Mary Lisa]

This is simply a test post to see if I can post anymore.

ETA: Apparently I can. Wonder why it won't let me on that other thread. Sheesh.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

The last url should be changed to "ExMormonKnow" me thinks. ;)

Methinks you didn’t check it out, because the first page belies “ExMormon”.

I meant in regards to your approach of MormonThink. I just found the reference funny is all. ;)

It seems your "standard of evidence, verification, and critical thinking" are measured by how much they already agree with your opinion (usually the opinion of other writers) on those particular subjects.

I would say this is a perfect description of yourself. As for me, I was a true believer looking for supporting evidence. When the evidence showed otherwise, I was rational enough to alter my opinion.

My point was that you appear to conclude that any rational thinker who honestly looks at the evidence would leave the Church, or consider it something other than what it claims.

issues come down to translation method of the Book of Mormon itself.

Ya mean like lookin’ at a peepstone with his face in a hat and gold plates in the woods? That real translation method? Or the fake ‘translating from the gold plates’ method? No wonder your blog talks about increasingly questioning members.

Yes, like "lookin’ at a peepstone with his face in a hat and gold plates in the woods" and more.

Yeah, I know, that’s not what you meant, but I couldn’t resist. So God’s inspiration and revelation was hit and miss, trial and error? And you are okay with this excuse making cop-out?

Not only am I OK with it, but it's the only way I've personally experienced it myself.

The assumptions one approaches the discussion with will influence the conclusions, as yours clearly do.

Again, this is a better description of yourself than it is of me. You have made an assumption as to how I approached the discussion.

I don't think it's any "better" for me than anyone else. I don't claim that my assumptions approaching questions don't influence my results because they do.

Since the reality is that I approached the discussion with true believer assumptions and conclusions, then why did I change my mind when faced with the evidence? Some of us are wise enough to follow the evidence to reach the conclusion, instead of the other way around only looking for confirmation. Are you?

All data is theory-laden. Check with John-Charles Duffy on some of your assumptions, he'll recommend some good sources.

A new and most excellent Book of Mormon commentary not unwilling to admit problematic or rough areas

Doesn’t your own description give you a clue that all is not well in Zion? I’ll read it because that’s what I’ve always done. I read everything on all sides, and then form my opinion based on the evidence. Do you read the other side?

I don't see it as a "two-sided" thing, so there really is no "other side." I read all sorts of books. Things with which I agree, things with which I don't, often in the same book, even.

Here’s a couple for you, with no admissions of problematic or rough areas:
“Demon Haunted World”- by Carl Sagan
“Guns, Germs, and Steel”- by Jared Diamond

No admissions of problematic or rough areas?

[_Brother of Mahonri]

2008 Exmormon Foundation Conference is Oct. 17 - 19, 2008 at the Embassy Suites Hotel, Salt Lake City, UT. Go to http://exmormonfoundation.org/2008Conference for details. Amazing line up of activities and speakers for 2008, including Steven Hassan - mental health counselor and expert on cults!

An "expert on cults"? Sounds like the conference appeals mainly to the Evangelical brand of anti-Mormon. Which raises the question: Can secular apostates from Mormonism co-exist peacefully with sectarian apostates from Mormonism? Sort of a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of thing?

I only went once, a few years ago. I never met any evangelicals there. Not a one.

Of course I also skipped out on the meeetings to go party. SO maybe there were some there.

no wait - i think i DID meet one. Well not exactly. I brought a few hundred dollars worth of non-utah libations and was hosting a happy hour in my suite and this dude shows up with a gallon of milk and starts making white russians. he never introduced himself, so I guess we technically didn't "meet" but it turned out that it was Nort. Defeintely evangelical.

So, 1 out of 100 or so people i met.

[_Dianne Ormond]

LifeonaPlate,

You have yet to say anything about the increasingly questioning members featured on your blog.

Instead of pontificating, show me evidence: archaeology, DNA, geology, anthropology, dendroclimatology, morphology, pollen, middens, fossils, linguistics, slag heaps, fossils, any Book of Mormon city, or any physical, scientific evidence. And oh yeah, tell me how the sun gets its light from Kolob, LOL.

I want credible, peer-reviewed evidence, and not the pathetic, apologetic EXCUSES for why there is NO evidence. It was the apologists’ pathetic excuses that got my son-in-law out.

Only true believers can swallow that horses mean tapir and deer, silk means rabbit fur, north by south means northwest by southeast, chariots mean sledges, steel swords mean macuahuitls, peepstone means Urim and Thummin, gold means tumbaga, Salamander is true (oops-forgery), DNA was swamped, and so on with all the word smithing (pun intended). How much does it take to get a clue from all the excuses? Pardon me while I laugh at the absurdity, along with the rest of the world.

Yes, I think it is irrational (or gullible) to believe in the Book of Mormon with no scientific evidence for it, and all the scientific evidence against it. Apologists play word games and fool themselves, obscuring reality with verbal fog, as they continue dancing around their dissonance.

Until you show me something more substantial than rhetoric, I’m moving on.

Perhaps the reading I should have first recommended are:
http://mormonthink.com/testimonyweb.htm
Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)- by Carol Tavris, on cognitive dissonance, and why people cling to their opinions when evidence clearly shows they are in error.
Don’t Believe Everything You Think- by Thomas Kida, on the weirdness of peoples’ thinking.