DiscussMormonism.com

On another thread guy sajer put together a short list of issues that could potentially cause concern and even skepticism/unbelief. I responded to the post. I have always been one to try and see both sides of a coin. I have also always been one to try and poke holes in things. Including paradigms that I don't see as airtight. Including my own beliefs.

I would appreciate it if some of you that have given things alot of thought would help me out by poking some holes in my reasonings and response to guy. You may do so with such eloquence and expertise that I will simply have to bow out...

Thanks in advance for your time.

I'm new here, and besides Shades and TD I'm not familiar with most of you other folks. Shades and TD are probably quite familiar with the fact that I'm not one to get all heated up and/or argumentative. When necessary I've made and continue to make paradigm shifts. That's why I enjoy reading the thoughts and opinions of others in regards to things Mormon and how they relate to "the real world", whatever that is. <g>

Here is his original post and my response.

hi guy sajer. you said:

A related, but broader, question is whether there is anything that would give pause to the internet Mormon (apologist) or true believer rank and file.

Let’s see, so far we have (in no particular order):

1. Murder and mayhem in holy books committed by God, his spokesmen, and his followers.
2. Serial adultery, treasure digging/fraud, habitual lying, megalomania by the “Second only to Jesus.”
3. Book of Mormon chalk full of anachronisms and blatant historical inaccuracies
4. Compelling evidence that whole sections of Book of Mormon were lifted straight from the King James version of the Bible, inaccuracies and all
5. DNA evidence proving not a single drop of Semitic blood in Book of Mormon descendents, contrary to over 100 years of prophetic pronouncement.
6. Source material for P of GP proving it is not what Joseph Smith claimed it to be
7. Institutional racism
8. Institutional sexism
9. Repudiation by current prophets of long-held core beliefs and teachings of past prophets
10. Proven lack of any capacity for discernment by God’s elect (a la Hoffman incident)
11. Complete lack of anything of true doctrinal gravitas coming from God’s elect, unless one includes dress and grooming standards as high doctrine
12. Complete, utter, and absolute irrelevance of Mormonism to 99.999% of humanity, despite over 150 years of existence and missionary work.
13. Inability of Joseph Smith to get his story straight regarding THE most significant event in world history since the resurrection.
14. Eternal system of marriage that transforms women into property.
15. Etc.

Does any of this make a difference?

What would it take?

Seriously, is there anything at all that would cause the internet Mormons and rank and file faithful to question, I mean seriously question?

What would it be?

Mentalgymnast: good choice on number 15. The list could go on. I am an active member of the church with a calling...paying tithing, etc., but probably not a true TBM, although I used to be back before about 1993 or so. I'm thinking that I can still count as one of those that you see as being someone who "believes" even though much of the evidence would seem to point towards disbelief as being the obvious default position.

Let me ask you a question. First, let's operate and the assumption for a moment that there is a supreme being who is creator of humankind and that he/she has a loving/kind disposition towards the creations which are his/hers.

OK with that?

An example from history to consider. Beginning days of the Revolutionary War. New York. Camp fevers and other ailments caused by unsanitary conditions and vile/impure water. It was estimated that there may have been 10,000 that were down and out of operation. George Washington was aware of the spread of disease/sickness and knew that cleanliness of vaults/latrines was one of the keys in inhibiting the spread of disease and so he ordered the they were covered with fresh earth daily, and new vaults dug weekly. His knowledge and thus his ability to do something for the good in a nasty/filthy situation extended only so far. Why were ways and means not found and executed to promote and inhibit all of the causes of the disease? Why were the troops drinking vile/impure water? Why did so many die as a result of these unfortunate conditions? These were good men who had dedicated themselves to a good cause which was to change the course of history. Couldn't God have somehow stepped in and made things right rather than let things take their course?

Dang it, why didn't God just step in and tell George how to make everything right...or for that matter, perfect?

Many questions could be asked as to "where was God" here, or "where was God" there? Not just in this historical venue, but in similar situations throughout history. There were good men/women that God could have revealed all the right answers/procedures to who then in turn could haved saved alot of grief and error along the way. Why didn't a loving/compassionate God do so?

Examples, ad nauseum, could be given which seem to (remember, we're assuming for a moment that there is a God who loves and cares for his/her creations) point towards the fact that God typically steps aside and lets his creations act for themselves and learn for themselves...in almost ALL situations, times, and circumstances.

Now, let's go to church. Why would one think that God would NOT operate pretty much the same way within the confines of a small subsection of humanity called his church? Why do we assume that every jot and tittle has been spelled out? Why would we think that life would not be just as tough and ambiguous in nature within the church as without when it comes to many things? Why does/or would it ONLY make sense to think that prophets and apostles are NOT just like us...most of the time (In other words's, why are we prone to think that they're in someway/somehow a special subspecies of humankind that are not prone to the fallen natures that the rest of us seem to be... and they are able to function/operate in this manner almost ALL of the time.) Why would we think that mistakes and apparent errors could not be made within the confines of the church that could lead to misery and pain for others? Why would we assume that all the evidence is in when it comes to this or that?

The world is a MESSY place. Would not some of this messiness also be part of the human experience within the church? If there is a God, he just does not seem to be the type to step in and do this, do that, cause this, cause that. At least from what we can see currently. What happened in the past...who REALLY knows? What ever has happened, happened. We can only judge/perceive the time that we live in accurately...somewhat.

Mark Hoffman, Joseph Smith, issues with Book of Mormon and PofGP, change in the church, human issues dealing with cultural context, and on and on. Just about everything that can be considered a cause for disbelief within the Mormon paradigm can be routed back to HUMAN operations/actions, human error in relationships (pride, vanity, moral transgressions, etc.), human produced or manufactured possible mis-information or incomplete information, human lack of understanding (thus producing incorrect/incomplete doctrine and/or policies), incomplete research and/or faulty reasoning performed by humans that may have an agenda, etc., etc.

Institutional racism, by the way, is a result of individual racism. If there is or has been institutional sexism, again, individuals are the cause. Humans that may be in error.

The question, at least for me, is: how often would one expect God to step in...make course corrections, beat with a whip, change incorrect perceptions, change faulty reasoning, etc. If history is any indicator, I'd have to say that God doesn't step in very often. But at times...he may step in for some kind of course correction. Why in one case and not another, or at one time and not another...who knows?

Anyway, I have found that as I've lowered my expectations I've found that I'm not disappointed as much anymore...or surprised when weird things happen, from my own perspective.

Can the church be true even when elements/parts of your one through fourteen (and more that can be added) my have some validity/truth to them?

I think yes.

by the way, as you know, the DNA issues and PofGP issues and a number of others that can be listed are not "done deals" one way or the other. There is wiggle room to go either way on most issues...reasonably.

Regards,
MG

Hi MG...

Great thoughts as always.

I think I could write a couple of books on this particular issue... except for the fact that I am not very good at articulating my thoughts on this topic! :-)

So... going with your assumption that there is a personal, kind, loving, God who intervenes on occassion (which I don't buy but will go along with for the moment) LOL!

The problem is not with assumptions but with the truth claims of the church and its leaders.

If the church went with the idea that there is a God but He doesn't do much... steps in only when He wants (or something), once in a blue moon gives us some direction, and on occassion gives us some clues, well then I guess you could go with this. If the church stated that God doesn't really answer prayers except once every thousand years or so, He doesn't really care much about the minutia of our experience, or He rarely makes Himself known... well OK then.

This is not what the church claims, teaches, nor is it what scriptures claim and describe. The exact opposite is the case.

So if the church claims are true, God is not this remote being who steps in once in a blue moon.

Moving on....

IF God is a loving personal, kind, compassionate being... and started a church for a few million folks and is directing this little group of people, why is he bothering at all if there is nothing even remotely there to distinguish this group from every other group who claims to be the special elect of God?

In other words, what in the world is God doing? He has a select group of folks, sort of steps in once in a blue moon, tells them they are special but they are no different than anyone else, and then what? What is the purpose? Why? What is going on? Who cares?

I mean this seriously makes no sense to me at all.

If God needed some sort of human institution then why not just come out and do something? I just don't see the point of a few million folks claiming to have the "real" power of God, be the real ones who know God's will, and yet they struggle just like everyone else. They are not only NOT showing the way but are behind the times by about five decades.. following along the rest of society.

One would think there would be some evidence of something more if God is at the helm no?

This is my issue with a lot of apologetics... they don't understand why non-believers have high expectations. Well we had high expectations because of the claims of the church.

I would think a group of people DIRECTED BY GOD would be somehow remarkable. But alas it is not the case by any stretch of the imagination.

Does that make sense?

:-)

~dancer~

truth dancer wrote:
I would think a group of people DIRECTED BY GOD would be somehow remarkable. But alas it is not the case by any stretch of the imagination.

Does that make sense?

:-)

~dancer~

Truth Dancer, we are all directed by God and we are all special. Sometimes all the effluvia of life gets in the way of our realizing this.

Mentalgymnast, if we go by your logic above, aren't the Branch Davidians the true church too?

Or, more specifically, are there any false churches that do NOT become true by application of all the excuses you listed?

hi Shades. you said:

Mentalgymnast, if we go by your logic above, aren't the Branch Davidians the true church too?

MG: what specific claims to they make to being the "true church" of Jesus Christ? Would you mind listing these for me? From their own Articles of Faith, or the equivalent, would be preferable.

Shades: Or, more specifically, are there any false churches that do NOT become true by application of all the excuses you listed?

MG: I think that one would have to look at each church that makes claims to being Christ's true church individually and sort out their "truth claims". Besides the Catholic church, what other Christian churches are claiming to be the church of Jesus Christ? Authority, saving ordinances, correct doctrine, correct teachings regarding godhead, etc.

Regards,
MG

hi truth dancer. you said:

Great thoughts as always.

MG: thanks!

TD: If the church went with the idea that there is a God but He doesn't do much... steps in only when He wants (or something), once in a blue moon gives us some direction, and on occassion gives us some clues, well then I guess you could go with this. If the church stated that God doesn't really answer prayers except once every thousand years or so, He doesn't really care much about the minutia of our experience, or He rarely makes Himself known... well OK then.

This is not what the church claims, teaches, nor is it what scriptures claim and describe.

MG: what does the church and teach specifically that would warrant your claim TD? That is, that the church positively teaches/claims that the inverse of your list above is actually the way it is? Notice that in my original post I didn't mention that God would withhold answers to prayers. Or that he would answer them with a frequency rate of once every thousand years. I think that if God answers prayers, it is at his own frequency rate and at the times that he dictates. That doesn't go against the grain of what I originally proposed/said.

TD:So if the church claims are true...

MG: again, TD, could you be a bit more specific as to which claims you're referring to?

TD: God is not this remote being who steps in once in a blue moon.

MG: I think that within the LDS view God can step in frequently or not. We would not be the ones to be at the forefront or on the frontlines making the decisions (telling God what he can and can't do?) of whether he does or doesn't take a hands off position here or a hands on function there...would we?

TD: IF God is a loving personal, kind, compassionate being... and started a church for a few million folks...

MG: let's add in all those that the church is doing proxy work for and will continue to do proxy work for during the millenium...

TD: ...and is directing this little group of people, why is he bothering at all if there is nothing even remotely there to distinguish this group from every other group who claims to be the special elect of God?

MG: but there is. Being the one and only church upon the earth in which he is "well pleased" speaking of the church collectively, and not individually...necessarily.

TD: In other words, what in the world is God doing? He has a select group of folks, sort of steps in once in a blue moon, tells them they are special...

MG: Ok. No problem with that...

TD: ...but they are no different than anyone else

MG: where did I say that? Are you misunderstanding what I am saying? I think that the church does teach that we are different from others in that we have a fuller understanding of principles and practices that will bring us nearer to God than those that choose not to engage in the practices and principles revealed. I am in agreement with this. This does not disengage us from the foibles, ambiguities, and trials that everyone else is exposed to.

TD: ...and then what? What is the purpose? Why? What is going on? Who cares?

MG: become more like God and take on Godly characteristics and attributes. Why? Because God wants us to have the opportunity to become like him. Who cares? God does.

TD: I mean this seriously makes no sense to me at all.

MG: it depends on your perspective and point of view. Granted.

TD: If God needed some sort of human institution then why not just come out and do something?

MG: that is the LDS's church claim.

TD: I just don't see the point of a few million folks claiming to have the "real" power of God, be the real ones who know God's will, and yet they struggle just like everyone else.

MG: WHY NOT?

TD:They are not only NOT showing the way but are behind the times by about five decades.. following along the rest of society.

MG: I think the case could be made that the world looks at those that are members of the church as being a "peculiar" people. A people that have higher expections and responsibilities placed on them to sacrifice, to serve, to be a "light on the hill".

TD: One would think there would be some evidence of something more if God is at the helm no?

MG: what specific evidences do you think would be necessary in order to believe that God is at the helm? How do your propose to measure those evidences across the board with a statistical degree of sureness?

TD: This is my issue with a lot of apologetics... they don't understand why non-believers have high expectations. Well we had high expectations because of the claims of the church.

MG: again, could you be a bit more clear as to what those claims are and how they could NOT fit within the paradigm envelope that I've described in my "George Washington" post?

TD: I would think a group of people DIRECTED BY GOD would be somehow remarkable.

MG: again, I think that an argument could be made that the CofJCofLDS is a remarkable institution and a marvelous work and a wonder on many levels.

TD: But alas it is not the case by any stretch of the imagination.

MG: I suppose we'll just have to disagree that this statement that you've just made is verifiably true.

Regards,
MG

How hard is it to believe now that I know all 'the stuff'? EXTREMELY HARD!

If I knew then what I know now, I never would have believed it in the first place. But I didn't.

Shades - thanks for the suggestion. I was about to say the same thing.

Hey MG...

I wasn't very clear.

I wasn't suggesting the church stated all that I was saying "IF" the church made those claims then there wouldn't be a problem. But as you state the church does indeed make claims that they are the one and only true church, directed by Jesus Christ himself.

I believe IF there were a one and only true church, directed by God "Himself" there would be some sort of evidence. I'm open to what this might be but it seems to me there would be something. The fact that there is not (or that pretty much everyone claims theirs is the one), is evidence enough that there is nothing to help identify any group as being the chosen one.

There are billions of people all over this world who believe THEY are the ones... they would provide as much or more "proof" as any LDS... so making the claim is not good enough in my opinion.

I have no idea what it is that you think makes LDS folks stand out among the peoples of the world... maybe you could elaborate on this?

My point is, does God intervene or not. If the answer is no, fine. If the answer is yes then there is a lot of explaining to do.

Why does he come down and tell the prophet how many earrings a woman can have but is silent on how to treat AIDS? Why does he help my ward member to find his contact in the grass but won't help the ten million children who will starve to death this year? Why does he worry about belief in Joseph Smith but seems to care nothing at all about the destruction we are doing to this planet?

I'm just wondering.... the typical answer is of course, God's ways are not man's ways... yada yada yada. It doesn't work for me. If we base our belief on God as portrayed in scripture "He" is as cruel, egotistical as any nomadic semite from five thousand years ago.

Back to my point... (sorry I'm rambling here), you seem to be describing a one and only true church that is directed by God but is no different than any other church (generally speaking).

God may or may not be involved, may or may not intervene, we can't always tell if God is answering prayers or not, God may do kind things at times but be cruel at other times, we have no idea what God is doing so we just trust our leaders, who may or may not be inspired. The scriptures may or may not be true so we have to have faith but even with faith we are often misled or misunderstand. We can't really tell what is good or not because it keeps changing so we just hold on to whatever the latest prophet says until another changes course.

Why does this sound even remotely like a good thing let alone a God directed organization?

It just seems to me if God was at the helm there would be some sort of indication that God was indeed at the helm.

Does that make sense?

Let me give you an example... if some beings from another universe came to our earth... what group of people would they guess is God's elite chosen? What group of folks would their research suggest is being directed by God? Which belief system or religion would they most likely guess is the one and only true one?

~dancer~

hi TD.

I believe IF there were a one and only true church, directed by God "Himself" there would be some sort of evidence. I'm open to what this might be but it seems to me there would be something. The fact that there is not (or that pretty much everyone claims theirs is the one), is evidence enough that there is nothing to help identify any group as being the chosen one.

MG: the evidence is the Book of Mormon. To be honest with you, the only thing that kept me connected (and keeps me connected) to the church a few years ago was the Book of Mormon evidences. It's the same old argument that has been around for years. If the Book of Mormon is truly and artifact delivered by the gift and power of God...then J.S. is a prophet...the church is true. I do believe that this chain of correlation does make sense. Now if the Book of Mormon had an overwhelming body of evidence against it, then bye bye church. I've read Metcalfe's New Approaches and a good amount of the other stuff that's out there dealing with Book of Mormon anachronisms, Spalding Theory (which is the one theory that I would personally subscribe to), New Testament quotations, ALOT of the online arguments (beginning way back when with the good ol' Tanner material)... including seven of nines's runaround with Brant Gardner over at ZLMB and FAIR, etc., etc.

I am not convinced that the Book of Mormon is bogus at this point in time. Yes, I'm familiar with theories of how the Book of Mormon came to be. But here's where I'm not convinced that the skeptics have the upper hand: 1.word print analysis...and 2.Hebraisms (chiastic structures, etc.). I haven't been convinced by the skeptics and those that have done alternative explanations/research as it relates to these two "evidences" that are contained within the Book of Mormon.

The Book of Mormon is indeed "keystone" for me. It is the Book of Mormon that has been the catalyst for further inquiry regarding alternative explanations for the "big issues" that are out there. If I ever came to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is bogus and there aren't valid reasons to believe in its truthfulness I would've course make some major paridigm adjustments. But the Book of Mormon acts as the catalyst towards adjusting my thinkings towards looking at faith/belief as a viable option.

I have no idea what it is that you think makes LDS folks stand out among the peoples of the world... maybe you could elaborate on this?

MG: Not a whole lot besides testimony and faith in a restoration of incomplete truths/priesthood authority/saving ordinances/keys of the knowledge of God. But those things act as a foundation and motivation for members to indeed live the gospel of Jesus Christ and take it seriously. Not that other folks don't. Overall, when you look at obedience and adherence to gospel principles taught by Christ in the New Testament I think that on the whole Latter-Day Saints as a group are a bit more "holding to the rod" and "on the narrow path" than the general population. That can be argued and disputed, but I'm not sure I want to go there during this conversation.

I'm of the opinion that the outcomes (which are wide ranging and inclusive in many segments of society) of counterculture movements over the years have impacted the LDS church less than the surrounding culture and churches. Judging what the differences are between members of the church and the "world" becomes a somewhat subjective enterprise based upon one's biases and point of view.

My point is, does God intervene or not. If the answer is no, fine. If the answer is yes then there is a lot of explaining to do.

MG: as I've tried to explain, it's not quite as black and white as I think you're making it out to be.

Why does he come down and tell the prophet how many earrings a woman can have but is silent on how to treat AIDS? Why does he help my ward member to find his contact in the grass but won't help the ten million children who will starve to death this year? Why does he worry about belief in Joseph Smith but seems to care nothing at all about the destruction we are doing to this planet?

MG: I don't know. But if a personal God exists, I'm not the one to tell him how to operate as he oversees his creations. To disbelieve because of the largess of ambiguity/evil/and senselessness in the world is sometimes very enticing/tempting. I can see why the natural tendency would be to follow in the footsteps of those who say that God is dead or is off in a corner of the universe and doesn't give a damn. But I choose to hope that there is some kind of rhyme or reason behind all the madness. I suppose the hope in a diety who performed an ultimate atonement and can help make everything work out plays a part in making this choice. Again, the Book of Mormon comes into play here.

Back to my point... (sorry I'm rambling here), you seem to be describing a one and only true church that is directed by God but is no different than any other church (generally speaking).

MG: there are difference which I think I have described previously. Important differences.

God may or may not be involved, may or may not intervene, we can't always tell if God is answering prayers or not, God may do kind things at times but be cruel at other times, we have no idea what God is doing so we just trust our leaders, who may or may not be inspired. The scriptures may or may not be true so we have to have faith but even with faith we are often misled or misunderstand. We can't really tell what is good or not because it keeps changing so we just hold on to whatever the latest prophet says until another changes course.

MG: all that I can say in response to this is that ambiguity in the world results in forks in the road that lead different directions as we respond. I think that my original post provides a way to work through some of these issues that you're presenting.

Why does this sound even remotely like a good thing let alone a God directed organization?

MG: again, it depends on what you expect/demand of God and what you expect/demand of others.

It just seems to me if God was at the helm there would be some sort of indication that God was indeed at the helm.

It would be AWFULLY nice if it was a bit more cut and dried. And again, for me it comes back to the Book of Mormon. If it is indeed what it purports to be...then God is at the helm of the LDS church and one can more comfortably look for the rhyme or reason behind what would appear to be senselessness and at times absolute madness that exists in this world. Part of that senselessness being the huge numbers of God's children who lose their way and become miserable and/or misled to some extent or another. One would hope that there is a way out for these individuals so that somehow, someway, somewhere, they will be happier than they may be in this sphere of existence.

Christ's atonement provides a way out from the messiness of this fallen world. Not that we shouldn't do everything in our power to help alleviate as much as the messiness as we can. I guess that's why I chose to work in public ed.

And again...I know that some of you are getting tired of me repeating myself...the Book of Mormon is indeed the "keystone of [my] faith". There are ways and means of working around the messy spots as one looks at the Book of Mormon potentially being what it purports to be. Once one loses that belief/hope, then all else can easily unravel. I know...I've been there.

Regards,
MG