Recovery from MAD

[_Sethbag]

She may be a nice lady, but her "wisdom" and her opinions are so cloyingly naïve, ignorant, and intellectually vacuous that it's almost painful to read nearly anything she has to say.

Oh come on Sethbag. I think you feel that way about all Mormons. I'm sure you feel that way about the stuff I write. Probably even the stuff I write to be silly on purpose.

Like this post, I'm sure. :-) No, Abman, your posts don't rise nearly to the level of cloying naïvété, ignorance, and intellectual vacuousness as Charity's. :-) Actually, you seem to have changed your tune a bit lately. It seems like you're questioning more. Is that true? And could you imagine Charity questioning? I mean seriously, if we found a diary in Joseph Smith's own bad handwriting and atrocious spelling, where he admitted making it all up, and using his position for power and sex, do you imagine Charity would concede that she'd been had? I can't. She'd find a way to keep believing anyhow.

[_barrelomonkeys]

I just am slightly uncomfortable with the way Charity is apparently made the poster child for a certain "type" of LDS.

I quite agree that she's an extreme case and judgements shouldn't be made about all LDS or even a certain type of LDS based solely on her.

Actually, I know Mormons just like her in terms of their attitudes, and their ignorance, and naïve arguments that they think are so powerful. I use Charity as a stereotype for a certain kind of Mormon because IMHO she is a stereotype for a certain type of Mormon.

I don't know many LDS. I do know Charity as a unique individual. :)

Ad nauseum?

[_moksha]

She literally is living in her own virtual world now, a world where everything she says makes perfect sense, by definition really, because it's tailored by her own mind specifically to flesh out and complement her whole belief system.

Then she is on her own spiritual pathway. Good for her.

[_asbestosman]

Actually, you seem to have changed your tune a bit lately. It seems like you're questioning more. Is that true?

I don't think so. I probably just find less threads I see where I can jump in with a defender POV lately. That doesn't mean I wouldn't say similar things to the past. I'll probably speak of bioethics differently now that I've read the book The Dude recommended, Challenging Nature.

And could you imagine Charity questioning? I mean seriously, if we found a diary in Joseph Smith's own bad handwriting and atrocious spelling, where he admitted making it all up, and using his position for power and sex, do you imagine Charity would concede that she'd been had? I can't. She'd find a way to keep believing anyhow.

You're probably right. Then again, I wouldn't immediately change my mind either. Remember the Salamander Letter? To be fair though, at least the Tanners seemed to recognize it as fishy. If no critics found a purpoted Joseph Smith diary confession to be of dubious origin, then perhaps there would be more for me to consider. In any case, I still prefer a self-contradiction in core doctrine to be key evidence against the church. Yeah I know that'll be hard what with the uncertain nature of what is truly core doctrine. Blacks and the Priesthood? Not core. Polygamy? Nope. Adam-God? Nope. Nephites in what is now the USA? Nuh-uh. Horses? Maybe, maybe not? Cumorah in NY? Yes and no. Global flood? Doesn't look likely. I think the core is atonement, and priesthood authority (although not necessarily restricted to men), and also that the Book of Mormon was not fully invented in the 19th century, but rahter by some group of people who lived somewhere on the Americas before Columbus. Also, if the Eternal Marriage thing isn't true, that'd be a serious if not mortal blow to the church.

[_Trevor]

In any case, I still prefer a self-contradiction in core doctrine to be key evidence against the church. Yeah I know that'll be hard what with the uncertain nature of what is truly core doctrine. Blacks and the Priesthood? Not core. Polygamy? Nope. Adam-God? Nope. Nephites in what is now the USA? Nuh-uh. Horses? Maybe, maybe not? Cumorah in NY? Yes and no. Global flood? Doesn't look likely. I think the core is atonement, and priesthood authority (although not necessarily restricted to men), and also that the Book of Mormon was not fully invented in the 19th century, but rahter by some group of people who lived somewhere on the Americas before Columbus. Also, if the Eternal Marriage thing isn't true, that'd be a serious if not mortal blow to the church.

I am not clear on what you mean by self-contradiction in core doctrine. Is core doctrine that doctrine which you think the LDS Church must maintain in order to be true, those things which are best attested, or those things for which there is the best evidence? From my vantage point it looks like your category of things that are not core is a mixed bag, and, well, your core category appears to be too. Could you explain how you are dividing these things up?

[_Bond...James Bond]

I thought about starting a new thread but can't think of enough to warrant it...so I'll just ask my question here.

What would secular critics have to gain by denying Book of Mormon evidence? Most secular critics don't give a frick about supernatural mumbojumbo anyway....so why would they deny any theories or arguments they have that have been proven false?

[_asbestosman]

I am not clear on what you mean by self-contradiction in core doctrine. Is core doctrine that doctrine which you think the LDS Church must maintain in order to be true, those things which are best attested, or those things for which there is the best evidence?

That which the church must maintain in order to be true.

From my vantage point it looks like your category of things that are not core is a mixed bag, and, well, your core category appears to be too. Could you explain how you are dividing these things up?

Not core is certainly a mixed bag. The core category concerns those things which would undermine the LDS church as the one and only church authorized to help us attain salvation. To me, that means the Book of Mormon is true, this church is the only one with the priesthood, and we must rely on the atonement of Christ. in my opinion, if those things are lost then one may as well join another denomination. Global floods, two cumorah's and the like don't seem nearly as core in that it doesn't so directly undermine what one must do to attain salvation. The priesthood, atonement, and the Book of Mormon do--the Book of Mormon because it is what initially separated the church from others and was used as a sign of legitimacy. If it isn't legit, then I fell the whole church crumbles too. Supposedly historical events like floods can be re-interpreted. Even opinions on when someone can receive the priesthood can be re-interpreted. But if it comes down that there is no priesthood, then there is no reason to remain in the church as now one can as easily work out salvation elsewhere.

[_harmony]

I am not clear on what you mean by self-contradiction in core doctrine. Is core doctrine that doctrine which you think the LDS Church must maintain in order to be true, those things which are best attested, or those things for which there is the best evidence?

That which the church must maintain in order to be true.

From my vantage point it looks like your category of things that are not core is a mixed bag, and, well, your core category appears to be too. Could you explain how you are dividing these things up?

Not core is certainly a mixed bag. The core category concerns those things which would undermine the LDS church as the one and only church authorized to help us attain salvation. To me, that means the Book of Mormon is true, this church is the only one with the priesthood, and we must rely on the atonement of Christ. in my opinion, if those things are lost then one may as well join another denomination. Global floods, two cumorah's and the like don't seem nearly as core in that it doesn't so directly undermine what one must do to attain salvation. The priesthood, atonement, and the Book of Mormon do--the Book of Mormon because it is what initially separated the church from others and was used as a sign of legitimacy. If it isn't legit, then I fell the whole church crumbles too. Supposedly historical events like floods can be re-interpreted. Even opinions on when someone can receive the priesthood can be re-interpreted. But if it comes down that there is no priesthood, then there is no reason to remain in the church as now one can as easily work out salvation elsewhere.

Church leaders, Joseph and Brigham in particular, kicked the Book of Mormon to the curb a long time ago, so why would it be considered core doctrine? The contradictory doctrine still exists in the D&C right up to yesterday (I haven't checked yet today to see if its still in there). The only thing that sets the LDS church apart from any other church is the claim to priesthood authority. And we can't even document when it was restored. *sigh*

[_asbestosman]

Church leaders, Joseph and Brigham in particular, kicked the Book of Mormon to the curb a long time ago, so why would it be considered core doctrine? The contradictory doctrine still exists in the D&C right up to yesterday (I haven't checked yet today to see if its still in there). The only thing that sets the LDS church apart from any other church is the claim to priesthood authority. And we can't even document when it was restored. *sigh*

If the Book of Mormon falls, so does Joseph Smith's claims to priesthood authority and prophethood. Then again, the Book of Mormon isn't on trial, it's readers are.

Anyhow, what contradictory doctrine is still in the D&C? I coulda sworn they removed the Lectures on Faith long ago ;)

[_harmony]

Church leaders, Joseph and Brigham in particular, kicked the Book of Mormon to the curb a long time ago, so why would it be considered core doctrine? The contradictory doctrine still exists in the D&C right up to yesterday (I haven't checked yet today to see if its still in there). The only thing that sets the LDS church apart from any other church is the claim to priesthood authority. And we can't even document when it was restored. *sigh*

If the Book of Mormon falls, so does Joseph Smith's claims to priesthood authority and prophethood. Then again, the Book of Mormon isn't on trial, it's readers are.

Anyhow, what contradictory doctrine is still in the D&C? I coulda sworn they removed the Lectures on Faith long ago ;)

Sex 132 directly contradicts Jacob 2.