posted
Ah yes, that is one of the points that the author made that I did like. It seems to be far easier to be critical of other people's beliefs than our own. In fact, in another thread unrelated to religion, I suggested that many times people will have a desire or idea that they want to believe in and then have the tendency to interpret everything as evidence to support that idea. They either dismiss or ignore the parts of the brain that suggest anything other than what they want to believe, and I wouldn't put it past my own brain to try to do something similar, which is why I try not to discount as impossible the ideas that I don't currently believe are probable. I think that's kind of the point that this guy was trying to make, and that particular point I was interested in, but I thought his arguments were pretty weak, and so I lost interest in what the rest of the book had to say.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
quote: God is perfect. Therefore the bible is perfect.
IF we are to beleive the bible is perfect, then why were the pages in my bible misnumbered in the 9th grade??? Could it be that human falability caused my bible to go from page 1013 to 1017 and back to 1014? Could this be a human misinterpritation of the Holy Text? Could there have been other foibles and mistakes along the way??? So many questions, so much faith... So little understanding... (such vagueness)
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the Bible's perfect. My guess is, though no one inside the church has told me so, that the Prophet (not neccessarily this one) of the Mormon Church will release the true version when the world is ready for it.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: I don't think the Bible's perfect. My guess is, though no one inside the church has told me so, that the Prophet (not neccessarily this one) of the Mormon Church will release the true version when the world is ready for it.
"True Version"? And the Joseph Smith Translation was. . . . what? Just another mistaken interpretation?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'll accept that you haven't made any claims about whether Joseph Smith actually saw or heard what he claimed, but is it safe to assume that you don't believe he did? Or are you saying that you do believe that he saw and heard what he said he did, but also believe that he misinterpreted his experience?
I don't have any basis for choosing between any of the possibilities as to what he saw. I have received no evidence other than testimony; I find this testimony less compelling than the combination of testimony and personal evidence I have received about my own faith.
I do think what Tom has mentioned (malevolent beings purposely sending false visions) could happen. I don't think every case, or even most cases, of "competing visions" occur because of this.
I believe that Smith did not receive divine revelation whose intent was that he found (or restore - I'm not sure which word is appropriate) the LDS Church. I don't know if he received no actual revelation, if the revelation he received was divine but misinterpreted, or if the revelation he received was from a non-divine source such as malevolent spirit or psychological delusion.
quote:I won't insist on the words 'fairy tale'
My sticking point isn't "fairy tale" so much as "instantly recognizable as nonsense." I believe what Joseph Smith recounted is possible, and must be evaluated with more thought than "this is nonsense."
quote:the point is, you apparently do not consider it reasonable to draw the conclusions that Mormons draw, from the claims of Joseph Smith. Likewise you do not consider it reasonable to draw Moslem conclusions from the claims of Mohammed, or Hindu conclusions from the Vedas, or Norse-pantheon conclusions from the Ynglingasaga.
I do not consider unreasonable for someone to draw the conclusions Mormons, Muslims, or Hindus draw. For one, I recognize that there are many reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from a given set of evidence, most or even all of them inaccurate. Second, I recognize that people have been exposed to different sets of evidence.
Unreasonableness isn't a necessary factor.
quote:Am I right so far?
So, no, not really.
quote:Why do people believe things that of their own religion, which they dismiss as incompatible with their experience when believers in other religions put them forth as evidence? As the saying goes, you're almost as much an atheist as I am; I believe in one god less. Why do you not apply the same rules of evidence to your own god that you apply to everyone else's?
Again, it's possible one has applied the same rules of evidence to other religions. I don't disbelieve Mormon or Islamic teachings because I don't believe the revelations at the root of each didn't happen. I disbelieve them because I don't believe the revelations, based on my evaluation of other evidence.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that Smith did not receive divine revelation whose intent was that he found (or restore - I'm not sure which word is appropriate) the LDS Church.
Just to answer your question, I would say that Joseph Smith founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints OR that he restoredChrist's true church.
He couldn't have restored the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, since it had never existed, as a Church for Saints of the Latter-Days, before.
It's not important, but there was an implied (or at least inferred) question there, so I answered it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
karl, Mormons don't use the Bible Joseph Smith translated. They use the King James Bible. I made a guess as to why they don't use the one JS translated: the world is not ready for it, nor has it ever been since JS's time, while at the same time giving an explanation as to how the Bible is not the same as God would have originally had it made. But that's all it was, a guess.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: karl, Mormons don't use the Bible Joseph Smith translated. They use the King James Bible. I made a guess as to why they don't use the one JS translated: the world is not ready for it, nor has it ever been since JS's time, while at the same time giving an explanation as to how the Bible is not the same as God would have originally had it made. But that's all it was, a guess.
Mormons do use the JST of the Bible. If you have the LDS version of the King James Bible, it is rife with footnotes, many of which refer to the JST when that version is significantly different from the KJV. Why the church chose to adopt the KJV rather than promote the JST is anyone's guess.
Dag, thank you for answering my question.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
So where you come from, you actually use the JST? i didn't even know it'd been formally published but I just checked it at lds.org. I must say I'm rather surprised.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Did it actually make things any clearer? I wasn't sure I accurately expressed the distinction I was trying to draw.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Hm. I wonder if a common trait among atheists and agnostics is a lower threshold for the diagnosis of "unreasonable" things.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: I don't have any basis for choosing between any of the possibilities as to what he saw. I have received no evidence other than testimony; I find this testimony less compelling than the combination of testimony and personal evidence I have received about my own faith.
Hang on, though. There is testimony for both the Mormon and Catholic versions of Christianity, right? But, you claim, you have personal experience only for the latter. But doesn't it seem likely that, had you been born into a Mormon family, the interpretation you put even on exactly the same experience would be entirely different? If this weren't so, I think you are at something of a loss to explain why most religious people, even the ones who, like yourself, claim a personal experience, follow the faith of their parents. So, if you accept this premise, then your 'evidence' supports all positions equally; which is to say, it is useless.
quote:
quote:I won't insist on the words 'fairy tale'
My sticking point isn't "fairy tale" so much as "instantly recognizable as nonsense." I believe what Joseph Smith recounted is possible, and must be evaluated with more thought than "this is nonsense."
Do you, indeed? I find that remarkably interesting. Would you say the same of modern-day accounts of alien abductions, which indeed resemble comrade Smith's account quite closely in many ways, right down to the glowing being telling people how they should live righteously? If not, why not?
quote:Again, it's possible one has applied the same rules of evidence to other religions. I don't disbelieve Mormon or Islamic teachings because I don't believe the revelations at the root of each didn't happen. I disbelieve them because I don't believe the revelations, based on my evaluation of other evidence.
Again, though, I'd like to point out that, had you been born into the tradition of the LDS, you almost certainly would believe the revelations, based on extremely similar evidence. So what makes Catholicism special?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Did it actually make things any clearer? I wasn't sure I accurately expressed the distinction I was trying to draw.
Yes it did. At first I thought you were just hedging, but that's not usually your style. On closer reading I think I get what you are saying. My own attitude, I think, is pretty similar, though I'm working from a different premise and interpreting "evidence" differently because of that.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you say the same of modern-day accounts of alien abductions, which indeed resemble comrade Smith's account quite closely in many ways, right down to the glowing being telling people how they should live righteously? If not, why not?
Would I say what? That it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand? Of course I would. I can quickly arrive at a conclusion that's essentially, "This isn't something I need to concern myself with, because I don't believe it to be true, and even if it were, what the hell could I do about it."
But it's not "instantly recognizable as nonesense"; it's certainly possible there are aliens appearing to humans. I'm not going to believe in them at this time, because I think there is more evidence the other way. I'm not even going to investigate further.
quote:Again, though, I'd like to point out that, had you been born into the tradition of the LDS, you almost certainly would believe the revelations, based on extremely similar evidence. So what makes Catholicism special?
Neither one of us has any basis for saying one way or the other. KarlEd grew up Mormon (I'm not sure if he was born into it), and he left. I've known people to leave the Catholic Church, too. I've also known lots of people to join it.
posted
That is why I was careful to couch my observation in terms of likelihoods rather than certainties. I do not think you can disagree that most people remain in their parents' church all their lives. Leaving that aside for the moment, though, could you perhaps accept the postulate for the time being, and expound on what that would imply for your faith?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While you can say X percent of all people believe what they were taught to believe growing up, that does not follow that any specific individual has X percent chance of doing the same.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is why I was careful to couch my observation in terms of likelihoods rather than certainties.
What MPH said.
quote:Leaving that aside for the moment, though, could you perhaps accept the postulate for the time being, and expound on what that would imply for your faith?
Which postulate are you speaking of? I'm not sure from the context.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think most people identify with their parent's religion most of their lives. I'm not sure that's the same as "remain in their parent's church", though. I have two sisters who very much identify themselves as Mormons but neither of whom live anywhere near the ideals of the Mormon church. I have many, many acquantances, some of whom are gay, who identify as "Christian", or even as "Catholic" or "Lutheran", but who haven't stepped foot in a church since their parents dragged them to Sunday School. I have many acquaintances who very uncritically believe there is "something" to "at least some" of the alien abduction claims, and even a few who believe John Edwards can speak with the dead. The bottom line is "most people" in my experience, don't even think about these types of things (religion included) except where their lives incidentally brush up against them, or when idle conversations turn to religion. So it stands to reason that among those who do attend church regularly, a large percentage do so because of habit rather than because of the results of a long and thorough investigation. It's also likely that most people don't investigate very deeply because most religions look very much alike in the practical, daily aspects of living them. Where they differ most is in the areas where evidence of their truthfulness or utility are most lacking. So it's very likely that "cultural adherents" to a religion would find reasons to switch very uncompelling. Most people don't dig deeply into their own religions. Most people are content to believe others, especially their religious leaders, have done so and are content to live on that borrowed light.
Since the question was raised, I was born into the Mormon Church. All my close family still identifies as Mormon. Mormonism always made sense to me, given certain premises. But because personal testimony is given so much importance in the LDS church, and I could never get any identifiable witness for myself, I always wondered if I would have converted to Mormonism if I had been born Catholic, or something else, and later encountered the LDS church. I'm guessing "not" at this point in my life.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
For whoever cares to make an educated guess, percentage-wise, how many Mormons do you think are simply born into it? And do you think this is the main reason the LDS church is the fastest growing in the world?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the MAIN reason nowadays is that the Mormons pretty much require aggressive missionary work from half their population. But I'm sure birth rate helps -- and I'm sure, when they were populating Utah mostly on their own, that it was a pretty huge factor.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to see hard figures of active church members alongside "members of record". (For all religions, not just LDS). When I was on my mission in South America, (which reported huge conversion rates for years before I went on my mission), it was very common to work in a ward with only 10 percent or so active members.
"Fastest Growing" isn't necessarily a good thing if it ultimately doesn't make a difference in the individual's life.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:While you can say X percent of all people believe what they were taught to believe growing up, that does not follow that any specific individual has X percent chance of doing the same.
Actually it does, in the absence of other information about the individual, specifically about personality traits that correlate with maintaining the parental faith or not. That's what probability means.
quote:Which postulate are you speaking of? I'm not sure from the context.
The postulate that, had you been born into a Mormon family, you would have interpreted your experience as evidence in favour of that version of Christianity, rather than Catholicism. Perhaps 'hypothesis' would be a better word.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually it does, in the absence of other information about the individual, specifically about personality traits that correlate with maintaining the parental faith or not. That's what probability means.
Probability is about what happens with random events. But your question was about a specific person (me) and posed to a person with fairly deep insight into that specific person's thoughts (also me). One would assume you are interested in knowing about any personality traits that correlate with maintaining parental faith or not, and are not merely interested in a probabilistic answer.
quote:The postulate that, had you been born into a Mormon family, you would have interpreted your experience as evidence in favour of that version of Christianity, rather than Catholicism. Perhaps 'hypothesis' would be a better word.
Thanks for clarifying. I'll think about my response and put it together today or tomorrow.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually it does, in the absence of other information about the individual, specifically about personality traits that correlate with maintaining the parental faith or not. That's what probability means.
Probability is about what happens with random events. But your question was about a specific person (me) and posed to a person with fairly deep insight into that specific person's thoughts (also me). One would assume you are interested in knowing about any personality traits that correlate with maintaining parental faith or not, and are not merely interested in a probabilistic answer.
I might be interested, but I do not in fact have any such information; it follows that the probabilistic answer is the best I'm going to get. Moreover, as I'm sure you realise, the entire basis of this line of questioning is my belief that you are deceiving yourself about why you believe as you do; therefore, your own insights into your thought processes are not entirely helpful.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, if you were truly trying to persuade Dag to believe as you do (rather than assuming he's some sort of master of self-deception), insights into his thought processes would be of the utmost importance, and entirely helpful. As it is, you merely come off as a boorish know-it-all. Posts: 1595 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But that is not what we were discussing; rather, it was the possibility that he would take the Mormon faith had he been born into a Mormon family.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I might be interested, but I do not in fact have any such information; it follows that the probabilistic answer is the best I'm going to get. Moreover, as I'm sure you realise, the entire basis of this line of questioning is my belief that you are deceiving yourself about why you believe as you do; therefore, your own insights into your thought processes are not entirely helpful.
Then I doubt I'll take the time to provide them to you.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I asked for them; we are discussing two separate matters here. First is the probability that you would accept the Mormon faith had you been born into it; here I argue that a probabilistic answer is the best I'm going to get. But second is the question of how this would affect your current faith, if we could prove it was true. Here there is no data other than your own internal musings. Which, therefore, I would still like to hear.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, for what it's worth, I'd like to hear your response. However, I'll understand if you choose not to give one, all things considered.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, I'll get to it tomorrow - it's something I have to work to put in words, plus I'm not sure how much of it I'll be comfortable sharing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, here is my Christian response to your questions:
As far as I am concerned the questions in the web site miss the point. These things are not what matters. It isn’t about what is fact; it is about what is true . There is a difference between fact and truth. The gospels illustrate larger truths.
For example:
What matters in the birth stories is that God became incarnate in the world and that we are called to continue to be God in the world. If I were to time travel and discover that Jesus was conceived in the usual way, it would make no difference at all.
What is important about the resurrection is the message that love is stronger than death.
Faith, for me, is a matter of choosing to believe in the larger truths.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
