Gadianton wrote:I entirely disagree, I think praying about the Book of Mormon has very little to do with people joining, generally speaking. On or off mission, I don't ever recall a convert expressing a witness to the Book of Mormon as the deciding factor in their decision. More often than not, the Book of Mormon seemed tolerated, the primary interest being in certain doctrines that seemed more common sense than elsewhere, or great member support.
Although I can't judge such conversion, I would predict that these type of members would fall by the wayside quite quickly. The church is not a slacker church and one needs to be committed to the callings and know that the LDS church is true. If not, the person may not be able to devote the time necessary.
I never said anything about being committed to callings, I entirely agree. But none of that from what I have seen hinges on "receiving a witness" to the Book of Mormon. In fact, the one example I can think of from my mission where a deep witness testimony of the Book of Mormon had seemed to matter was in that case of a bitter apostate. The man was rich and successful, and according to his wife, spent weeks desperately praying over the Book of Mormon, not willing to budge in his commitment until he got his witness. She wouldn't offered details, but insinuated that he had something no less than the heavens opened to him. He converted, became a branch president almost immediatly, then a few years later got into some business deals that went south with other members of the same ethnic background as himself and never went back. One example I know. It's just funny this is the only example I can think of off the top of my head where a convert put it all on his Book of Mormon witness.
A Light in the Darkness wrote:Mormons are not taught in any formal epistemological sense that they can know the Church is true with absolute certainty.
A Light in the Darkness wrote:Mormons are not taught in any formal epistemological sense that they can know the Church is true with absolute certainty. They are taught, properly so I might add, that one can know with a very sure degree of confidence, beyond all reasonable doubt if you will. These are not one in the same. You're just equivocating common expressions with more strict philosophical concepts.
You almost get it. The problem is with the bolded part; "reasonable".
The things you claim to know just aren't a part of the public universe of ordinary things with which we have had practice (so to speak). Without that, epistemological practices don't apply.
Everyday usage of the word know is not helpful for these "big" issues. Science exists to help sort these things out empirically. But when we apply scientific thinking that is exactly when religious stuff falls down.
I get it just fine. I'm just not into scientism and think religious truths can be known with varying degrees of certainty. Asserting your agnosticism and telling others they don't get it doesn't change this.
A Light in the Darkness wrote:Mormons are not taught in any formal epistemological sense that they can know the Church is true with absolute certainty.
As a rule, I try to interpret things as charitably as is consistent with remaining rational. After reading some of the nonsense banged out on this issue by Peterson and other (amateur) apologists on the FAIR board - citing "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" to defend Mormonism, citing Kant's adoption of, and spin on, Hume's skepticism (which has pretty much subserved every daft po-mo or radically skeptical claim since) - I don't think I have them mispegged at all (or perhaps I should put it this way: only they themselves have given others every reason to believe they [at opportune times anyway] doubt the possibility of knowledge; and if they don't really doubt it, but simply have said as much while defending Mormonism, that only means they are very happy to spontaneously fly up ad hoc defense arguments which even they themselves don't really believe in, just to...just to what? "Do their jobs"? "Keep people believing"? But why, if it isn't even true? And if they're doing that, what would that say about their integrity?)
By the way, the appearance of a mere DENIAL is laughable. If Mormon apologists in fact think that things can be known, they ought to repudiate all the Kuhn and Xenophanes business and announce that they have changed their minds, and that they very much DO think "things can be known" (and perhaps, explain how). (I would also say they should get over to the MAD board and ally themselves with me when I try to point out to the Julianns of the world just how stupid and irreconcilable with Mormonism is their own radical skepticism). Anyway, there is nothing wrong with changing one's mind, after all. But merely denying something which you are on record as believing, if it is not indicative of a change of mind, can only be indicative of a deeply confused mental state.
About the "loser" comment, I would LOVE it if Mormon apologists demonstrated that there was any conceivable item of anything which could get them to stop yapping on about how they are 100% right about Joseph Smith's church. But as long as they don't, I regard them as I do fanatical environmentalists, Nation of Islam apologists, devout anarchists, etc.: people who, in the act of claiming some lock on reality, don't want to talk about reality, and wage war against every constraint upon our beliefs imposed by that reality. What can I say? I think total fanatics like that are the definition of "losers". They'll shout at you that rocks float up to the sky, even as you are dropping a rock in front of them and it's falling to the ground. And nothing you say or do will get them off it. My guess is that certain Mormon apologists are so far gone, or at least so dependent on the church, that they could watch a videotape of Joseph Smith roasting and eating a small child, looking up at the camera saying, "I invented it all", and they'd still be running around the next day saying things like, "well, even John the Baptist doubted sometimes...Joseph Smith just doubted his own prophetic calling for a moment; but no one ever said prophets were perfect...".
And by the way, after years of bloviating about how flawed all those "anti-Mormon arguments against Joseph" were, guess who refused to debate Bob McCue on the painfully simple question: "Was Joseph Smith trustworthy?"! I cringe to say it, but really, what do you call a guy who runs around criticizing McCue's conclucions from behind the moderating cover of Juliann, but who then, when invited to debate such a simple, relevant question openly, RUNS AWAY? A "winner"? In my mind, that behaviour is positively shameful. There are many Mormons I have a lot of respect for - but not those kind. Perhaps that is wrong of me, I don't know, but that's how I feel anyway...
If Coggins7 and the rest of the apologetic crew on this board are not ultimately antagonistic to concepts like thinking, reality, evidence, etc., I should very much like to see them offer up some practical tests, the results of which they would accept as falsifying Mormonism. Until they do, why should they be regarded as fundamentally different as devout believers in astrology, who are likewise immune to every evidence that astrology isn't what it claims?
Daniel Peterson wrote: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.
Yet Dan and his band of wannabees put down such boards as the claim that no one reads or cares about the lies posted here.
Tell us Dan, why are you here? To defend your name? Against what?
why me wrote: The church is not a slacker church and one needs to be committed to the callings and know that the LDS church is true. If not, the person may not be able to devote the time necessary.
OH
MY
GAWD...
Speaking of SLACKERS! Admitted SLACKERS!!
This coming from an admitted inactive hypocrite. Not recently inactive, but for 30 years. This coming from a person who admits s/he is not committed to either 100% attendance or accepting callings.
You are pathetic. Please change your screen name to defending hypocrite.
John Larsen wrote:I cannot think of a single person who joined the Church because of this challenge. Virtually everyone I know was born into the Church and baptized at 8, well before reading the book. The two converts I am related to both joined before reading the book.
This would be an interesting research project: how many actually join because of this promise. I think the number will be very, very small.
John
In my missionary experiece you would be wrong about half the time.