Apologetics, and my issue with a systematic defense

[_jon]

That hypothesis works until you factor in at times knowing the future. Then you need a more complex explanation.

Some people correctly predict the numbers they should write down on their lottery ticket.
Your point comes down to a question of what percentage of times the future is correctly forecast.
Joseph Smith got some things right, but he got an awful lot more wrong.

What is the minimum percentile required for predictions to be classed as 'messages from God' rather than luck/coincidence/making your actions fit the forecast?

[_The Nehor]

Some people correctly predict the numbers they should write down on their lottery ticket.

Show me someone who always gets it right and I'll consider this.

Your point comes down to a question of what percentage of times the future is correctly forecast.

Every time it happens (though I can't control when or about what of course).

Joseph Smith got some things right, but he got an awful lot more wrong.

I'm not talking about Joseph.

What is the minimum percentile required for predictions to be classed as 'messages from God' rather than luck/coincidence/making your actions fit the forecast?

Don't know. So far it's 100% for me.

As for your objections

Luck: Some of them were not what I'd call lucky

Coincidence: Coincidence that visions/dreams/voices in my head coincide with reality......ummm, okay.

My actions making it happen: I can't think of an incident where I could have acted to cause the events let alone done so. Unless you're suggesting I sent vibes or something that caused it to happen?

[_jon]

Don't know. So far it's 100% for me.

This answers my question really.

I applaud you, you have a better prophetical success rate than any Prophet that has ever lived.
Including Joseph Smith and the current Mormon Prophet.
You perhaps should consider leading the Church.

[_The Nehor]

I applaud you, you have a better prophetical success rate than any Prophet that has ever lived.

In your face Obadiah!!!!!

Including Joseph Smith and the current Mormon Prophet.

How many prophecies has President Monson publicly made?

You perhaps should consider leading the Church.

I'm not insane. Why in the world would I want that job?

[_jon]

How many prophecies has President Monson publicly made?

What a great question!
Let me know if you find one...

[_subgenius]

We need some framework to find common ground on. What is truth? I guess I'm hoping to use commonalities we agree on through scientific advancements, conclusions verified or largely supported with peer-reviewed scrutinization...

so, in the wake of admitting that everyone has different "views", you propose that "commonalities" need to exist, and that these commonalities be validated through science.
Are you proposing that "truth" is only as it can be defined by the scientific method?
How do we then reconcile such inspirations like- "we hold these truths to be self-evident"?
Science validates truth much like Religion does, thus transforming belief to knowledge...though often with subtle and often indescribable differences.

For instance, whereas the earth was once believed to be flat, advancements in discovery and researched changed this belief.

are you implying that a natural science paradigm be used to measure and evaluate a subject belonging to a supernatural paradigm? seems like apples and oranges to me.

How do you personally define the difference between what you believe and what you know?

believe = able to be doubted. knowledge = doubt removed (ie. knowledge of self can not be doubted, due to doubt being from that self). I recall an idea from the writing "Lectures on Faith". It notes that one has "faith" in the existence of God until He is manifest unto them....after that one has knowledge of Him.

What do you state it is based on then? I'm curious because I too was a convert into the church, but now I left...so I apparently have a little more experience in the latter...but perhaps we are just dissecting meanings of words too fine.

Based on action.
If we are to keep the words "general" are you not assuming that meanings be known without your above mentioned "scrutiny" and "we agree"? ......commonalities indeed.

[_Pollypinks]

Mormons as well as fundamentalists place too much credence on spiritual experiences, or, in my opinion, emotionalism. Like, read the Book of Mormon, and if you have a burning in your bosom, you know it's true. Now, I've had a burning in my bosom about alot of issues in my life, and that didn't make them correct. And you have to be cracked in the head to read at least the first half of the Book of Mormon and find any sense in it whatsoever. Maybe a smidgen. But that's all. They'd do better to have a power point presentation, or, like Glenn Beck, a black board, explaining all the characters in that book and their relevance to anything spiritual.

[_stemelbow]

First off, I want to acknowledge that I am aware that everyone has biases, a unique framework of viewing existence and all of that.

It is my perception that apologists start with an assumption, and do their best to twist, turn, and shove everything into a box and hope it fits.

When presented with reasonable evidence, shouldn't we re-examine our position and change? And be willing to change as new things come to light?

It’s a weird tactic among critics around these parts to complain on one hand that LDS apologists won’t be swayed by their arguments to the point of giving up the faith, but then on the other hand complain LDS apologists actually consider reasonable evidence and change their position to be somewhat different from the regular TBM (who also happens to be maligned here). In this, we can’t win.

The act of desperately attempting to explain away evidences that contradict one's assumptions or beliefs makes the assumptions or beliefs begin to appear suspect...

Well of course. Faith in general appears suspect on that basis. How could there possibly have been a Jesus who came back to life and in so doing made it possible for all those who die to be resurrected and live forever? If we’re sticking strictly with the “well there’s no visible evidence of your faith claims therefore you are wrong” then there’s no reason to dialogue between faith promoters and faith opposers.

Here is a fantastic exit story that won some type of web award, where the author lost his faith due to apologetics...it is hilarious:

http://www.totryanewsword.com/2010/07/h ... n-god.html

This post is just my view on apologetics...

But for those LDS apologists on the board, did you ever waiver in your belief when you discovered certain things that appear to discredit your beliefs?

Sure.

Do you ever feel that you are working too hard to have things make sense in your world view?

Of course. I suspect this struggle will always be so. Working hard is, in my estimation, a given when it comes to discovering truth.

What would it take for you personally to change your beliefs?

My beliefs are nearly constantly in flux. I mean there are always little tweaks to be made, little polishing to do.

Or could nothing, no matter how strange or damaging alter your views?

Show me a person whose views are never altered. I think you are largely coming from a position that largely misunderstands the apologist, as do many others here.

[_subgenius]

Mormons as well as fundamentalists place too much credence on spiritual experiences

the audacity of religion!

, or, in my opinion, emotionalism.

bitter. duly noted

Like, read the Book of Mormon, and if you have a burning in your bosom, you know it's true. Now, I've had a burning in my bosom about a lot of issues in my life, and that didn't make them correct.

Also did not make them incorrect. Apparently you never read Moroni 7 with any sincerity.

And you have to be cracked in the head to read at least the first half of the Book of Mormon and find any sense in it whatsoever. Maybe a smidgen. But that's all.

a smidgen cracked or a smidgen sensible?

They'd do better to have a power point presentation, or, like Glenn Beck, a black board, explaining all the characters in that book and their relevance to anything spiritual.

My mistake and apologies........i think i just fed the troll.

[_stemelbow]

My mistake and apologies........i think i just fed the troll.

My confusion with Polly's post was how she seemed to mock the concept of spirituality then went after Mormon's and the Book of Mormon by saying its not even spiritual. So is she opposed to spirituality or opposed to the Book of Mormon because its not spiritual? What is spiritual to her?