Top 100 Reasons why GBH is smiling...

[_why me]

1) He has had a Throne Theophany

.

I doubt it. Why would he keep it a secret?
Lehi didn't.
My guess is that he hasn't had a single visionary experience.

We are all entitled to guesses, I suppose.

[_gramps]

why me wrote:

However, when this so called warm fuzzy occured for the average postmo, not one would have described it as a warm fuzzy. Instead, at the time that it was receive most if not all postmos would have claimed it as a manifestation of the holy ghost.

So, what's your point. They've moved on beyond the milk to real meat and vegetables and dessert, together with a glass of wine. They know what that was all about now.

I don't think anyone is denying they had "witnesses." (OK, I know some have never had such a thing, but I think most posties have.)

[_Loquacious Lurker]

I was kind of disappointed when it didn't get many hits.

Remember. It's just like Mother said: it's not what others think of you, it's what YOU think of you that counts. ;)

[_Some Schmo]

You know, Dan, I have read many exer or postmo posts. I kinda of feel sorry for them. After all, most believed with a strong testimony one time. Most felt the holy ghost testify of the truth to them. And then, suddenly, they are outside looking in. It must be a shock for their senses.

I think that GBH is smiling because he knows what he has to look forward to....a life with his wife in the celestial kingdom. He is a good guy.

You know, folks, I have read many TBM or mo posts. I kinda of feel sorry for them. After all, most believe in a strong delusion at this time. Most think they feel the holy ghost testify of the truth to them. And then, suddenly, they realize it's bogus; they are inside looking out. It must be a shock for their senses. But then they stifle and deny that information and everything is A-OK again.

I think that GBH is smiling because he knows what he has to look forward to....all the cash being the CEO of a major tax-free corporation is entitled to. He is a rich guy.

[_A Light in the Darkness]

In fact, if interpreted properly, each of these statements are somewhat defendable. For example, I do think that absolute infallible knowledge is impossible. But, the follow up question is "so what?". We get along fine without such epistemological absolutes.

Why do you need to qualify it with "somewhat?" I don't see the point in doing so unless acknowledging Dr. Peterson fully right even in the most trivial of matter is a herculean task. Each of his statements are easily defensible. They are so obvious to you that you exclaim, "so what?" It's not like Dr. Peterson said these things in a vacuum. They are rend from context in which saying these things can be appropriate. Sometimes people make arguments that mistakenly presume the need for certainty to have knowledge. Why, Tal is an example of a person in this very thread who conflates lack of absolute certainty with denial of the knowledge in his comments.

[_Tarski]

In fact, if interpreted properly, each of these statements are somewhat defendable. For example, I do think that absolute infallible knowledge is impossible. But, the follow up question is "so what?". We get along fine without such epistemological absolutes.

Why do you need to qualify it with "somewhat?" I don't see the point in doing so unless acknowledging Dr. Peterson fully right even in the most trivial of matter is a herculean task. Each of his statements are easily defensible. They are so obvious to you that you exclaim, "so what?" It's not like Dr. Peterson said these things in a vacuum. They are rend from context in which saying these things can be appropriate. Sometimes people make arguments that mistakenly presume the need for certainty to have knowledge. Why, Tal is an example of a person in this very thread who conflates lack of absolute certainty with denial of the knowledge in his comments.

Well, I need to qualify things because, for example, we have

"Already in the sixth century before Christ, the pre-Socratic thinker Xenophanes of Colophon recognized this aspect of the human condition: 'And as for certain truth, no man has seen it, nor will there ever be a man who knows about the gods and about all the things I mention. For if he succeeds to the full in saying what is completely true, he himself is nevertheless unaware of it; and Opinion (seeming) is fixed by fate up all things'. In other words, no mortal human being can know the truth absolutely, indubitably, precisely, or beyond any possibility of error or dispute.

I do not want to agree to the idea that there are gods and that some human beings might not be mortal.

We also have

"I am inclined to agree, in at least one sense, with Karl Popper's contention that absolutely pure and untainted sources of knowledge do not, and cannot, exist. Not, at any rate, here in this fallen world".

I do not want to assent to the idea that this is a "fallen world" and that some other world exists where absolute knowledge is possible.

[_why me]

why me wrote:

However, when this so called warm fuzzy occured for the average postmo, not one would have described it as a warm fuzzy. Instead, at the time that it was receive most if not all postmos would have claimed it as a manifestation of the holy ghost.

So, what's your point. They've moved on beyond the milk to real meat and vegetables and dessert, together with a glass of wine. They know what that was all about now.

I don't think anyone is denying they had "witnesses." (OK, I know some have never had such a thing, but I think most posties have.)

The point gramps is when the exer or postmo attempts to pass it off as a 'warm fuzzy'. That is my point. By delegating it to a warm fuzzy, they more or less do so out of self-validation for the place that they are now at. Such a disignation doesn't fly with me. It was definitely no warm fuzzy from my own experience. I could never pass off my witness as a warm fuzzy regardless if I am inactive, postmo or exmo. I couldn't fool myself in such a way.

[_why me]

You know, Dan, I have read many exer or postmo posts. I kinda of feel sorry for them. After all, most believed with a strong testimony one time. Most felt the holy ghost testify of the truth to them. And then, suddenly, they are outside looking in. It must be a shock for their senses.

I think that GBH is smiling because he knows what he has to look forward to....a life with his wife in the celestial kingdom. He is a good guy.

You know, folks, I have read many TBM or mo posts. I kinda of feel sorry for them. After all, most believe in a strong delusion at this time. Most think they feel the holy ghost testify of the truth to them. And then, suddenly, they realize it's bogus; they are inside looking out. It must be a shock for their senses. But then they stifle and deny that information and everything is A-OK again.

I think that GBH is smiling because he knows what he has to look forward to....all the cash being the CEO of a major tax-free corporation is entitled to. He is a rich guy.

Not a bad spin on my original post. However, my take on it makes more sense. Nice try though.

[_Some Schmo]

Not a bad spin on my original post. However, my take on it makes more sense. Nice try though.

Thank you. I'm sure yours does make more sense to you, given that you wrote it. After all, mine makes more sense to me.

Nice try, though.

[_Tal Bachman]

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.