FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » To Scott R (Page 1)

  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: To Scott R
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"My conviction that the Church is true isn't pertinent to this conversation. How I arrived at it is: I insist that I used the logical faculties available to any person who has a normal, functioning mind, and who is capable of independent thought."

We're in a different conversation now. I'm interested in the specifics of why you think that the Mormon church is true, using reason.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
I had experiences; I studied the doctrine. The results I received after experimenting and study with the faith and the doctrine were the results predicted by prophets like Alma and Moroni. (An enlightened mind; an enlarged soul. A greater sense of kinship with God, and a changed heart. A desire to serve the people around me)

I'm not interested in giving specifics, Paul.

I am aware that not everyone has the same experiences as me. I think the experiment is repeatable, given a certain set of factors; but I'm not interested in judging any individual's success or failure with the experiment.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Do you understand why, given your statements above, people persist in refusing to acknowledge the rationality of this "approach?"

You're saying "trust me; it meets this criteria" without explaining why it met the criteria, the ways in which the criteria were met, or even which specific criteria were met. Which is exactly the criticism people have of religious epistemology in general.

Your testimony in these threads, then, in which you state that you definitely had rational reasons but cannot share those rational reasons with anyone so they can evaluate your process for themselves, is emblematic of the entire problem with the religious process. It is, in other words, in a nutshell exactly why religious "knowing" is a massive failure.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Leaving aside the myriad reasons why Scott R might not wish to discuss the specifics of his personal experiences in such a warm, accepting environment, if he did so, he would be in violation of the TOS.

Classy thread. Poster says he doesn't wish to discuss his personal experiences, so you start a thread to harangue him about them!

Nice.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Tom: Or perhaps it could be indicative of Scott's desire not to give that which is of value to the dogs, or to cast pearls before swine. There's an enormous amount of difference between discussion between friends who trust one another, and a person putting their soul out there for every rake, fool, ignoramus, or average person. You wouldn't write down precious memories you have had with your wife and children, walk out to a public square, declare them loudly and then ask everyone around you what they thought about what you just did? No doubt there might be well meaning souls who appreciate the gesture, but there would also be those who take pleasure in railing on you. You don't need Scott's additional testimony of why he believes, the scriptures have been published, you've got the records of many closely documenting their conversion stories.

I doubt Scott could one up Joseph Smith's first vision, even if he was simply going for specificity. How could you even begin to test the veracity of Scott's statements when they would all deal with his perspective? Unless you've got some way to plug your brain into Scott's memories and experience them first hand you'd have a difficult time hammering out if there was anything different.

At best it seems all we can do is observe Scott's life and see if living his religion increases his happiness, intelligence, and wisdom. If it does, than perhaps it's worth looking into.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Your testimony in these threads, then, in which you state that you definitely had rational reasons but cannot share those rational reasons with anyone so they can evaluate your process for themselves, is emblematic of the entire problem with the religious process.
Well, the part in bold definitely isn't true.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay. Anyone who matters to the conversation, then.

--------

quote:
You wouldn't write down precious memories you have had with your wife and children, walk out to a public square, declare them loudly and then ask everyone around you what they thought about what you just did?
And yet, if someone scornful were to ask me to prove why I believed my wife loved me, or I loved her, I would have no qualms at all about sharing my most precious memories with that person. In fact, I would be more likely to do this than I would be likely to put on a black tie and go door to door to tell people about how wonderful it is that my wife and I love each other, whether or not they asked me.

Anyway, my point is this: whatever your reasons for not sharing, you have to understand that, by not sharing, you render your input useless. It's like you're just standing in the middle of the thread, mouthing words silently and miming a hurricane.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Okay. Anyone who matters to the conversation, then.
To which conversation? The one Scott didn't start?

quote:
And yet, if someone scornful were to ask me to prove why I believed my wife loved me, or I loved her, I would have no qualms at all about sharing my most precious memories with that person.
I suspect you'd be somewhat less eager to do so if you had every reason to suspect that, regardless of the content of your message, the scorn, condescension, and ridicule would still be there and still be expressed.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, I suspect he still would, Rakeesh. But, forgive me, Tom, I have long observed that Tom has very different notions of personal/private boundaries than many people.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
And yet, if someone scornful were to ask me to prove why I believed my wife loved me, or I loved her, I would have no qualms at all about sharing my most precious memories with that person.
...and I would walk away.

quote:
whatever your reasons for not sharing, you have to understand that, by not sharing, you render your input useless. It's like you're just standing in the middle of the thread, mouthing words silently and miming a hurricane.
I disagree. The contention isn't about evidence-- it's about process. Normal humans interpret inputs in largely the same way. There's no significant difference between processing a religious belief versus scientific theory. The process can be aided by an understanding of logic and critical thought-- no argument there.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Tom: Why wouldn't you instead recognize that the person who is scornful likely isn't really interested in being persuaded that you love your wife, and instead leave them where they stand?

I understand your point is that a person who says they are converted, and rightly so, but they can't say what makes it "rightly" can't do anything to actively persuade anyone.

But do you act in such a manner that though you do not share somebody's belief, you treat it with the same sort of respect with which they hold it? Many times I feel like you do, but others it seems like you wobble. Would you say that no believer on these boards has ever tried to share their reasoning only to be laughed to scorn by somebody else even if it wasn't you? I confess I have tried to be talkative even with people accusing me of hiding base motivations behind a poorly constructed veil of kind words. Yet, I definitely reached a point where I felt, "The people you are discussing such important things with are not your friends, and they don't want to be either."

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Anyway, my point is this: whatever your reasons for not sharing, you have to understand that, by not sharing, you render your input useless. It's like you're just standing in the middle of the thread, mouthing words silently and miming a hurricane.
You can certainly say this here where you feel you are able to dictate what is useful and what is not, IMO.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
To which conversation? The one Scott didn't start?
Yes, but the one on the other thread he joined. If he wants to matter to that conversation, he has to offer things of value. It is not useful to say to people claiming that there is no rational reason for believing X that "actually, I have rational reasons for believing X, but I'm not going to give you examples."

-------

quote:
Why wouldn't you instead recognize that the person who is scornful likely isn't really interested in being persuaded that you love your wife, and instead leave them where they stand?
Because there is no cost to me to assume good faith on their part. As a worst-case scenario, they might waste my time -- and if I were busy, I wouldn't be having that conversation anyway. Scorn does me no harm, and being wrong does them harm. If I can correct them at no risk to myself, more power to me.

---------

quote:
You can certainly say this here where you feel you are able to dictate what is useful and what is not, IMO.
What, then, is the utility? Does anyone here think that the non-believers here aren't perfectly well-aware that most of the believers on this forum -- with some exceptions -- do believe their belief is perfectly rational and based on evidence? And that it is precisely the poor vetting of such evidence -- the complete lack of critical process applied to that evidence -- that is the non-believer's main quibble with those claims? Merely saying "no, really, I do have evidence" is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the complaint.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Tom: But you are leaving out the possibility that as they are not in the right frame of mind to be persuaded, you might cause them to believe that not only do you not love your wife, but it's just alittle bit more likely that nobody does, and nobody can.

I don't think you know what it's like to try to explain something like say God's existence, try your very best, and have the person you are talking to hate the idea of God more afterward. It tears you up inside, because it would have been better to have not spoken to that person at all, but you did, and now they are worse off than before.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"Classy thread. Poster says he doesn't wish to discuss his personal experiences, so you start a thread to harangue him about them!

Nice. "

Well, Rivka, Scott said his story was not pertinent to the originnal conversation, so I started a new one.

Maybe you should try being more careful in your reading before letting the bitch out?

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Paul: While rivka was a bit 'warm' in her response to you making this thread, you don't need to say what you said that way. I think more than one person would appreciate you editing it to be a bit more mature.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Tom: But you are leaving out the possibility that as they are not in the right frame of mind to be persuaded, you might cause them to believe that not only do you not love your wife, but it's just alittle bit more likely that nobody does, and nobody can.

I don't think you know what it's like to try to explain something like say God's existence, try your very best, and have the person you are talking to hate the idea of God more afterward. It tears you up inside, because it would have been better to have not spoken to that person at all, but you did, and now they are worse off than before.

Dear, maybe that's a problem with the god you worship, not a problem with you.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
What, then, is the utility? Does anyone here think that the non-believers here aren't perfectly well-aware that most of the believers on this forum -- with some exceptions -- do believe their belief is perfectly rational and based on evidence? And that it is precisely the poor vetting of such evidence -- the complete lack of critical process applied to that evidence -- that is the non-believer's main quibble with those claims? Merely saying "no, really, I do have evidence" is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the complaint.
I have tried. I have on several occasions tried to get into the mechanisms of how I have arrived at my strongly held beliefs. I personally consider it very useful and quite transferrable. But just the mention of it has been met with "that is not a valid way to arrive at truth," and "you can't use that as evidence." End of discussion. I am personally not excited about trying it again. Those who control the playground here are waiting for a very narrowly defined presentation of evidence, and won't let any discussion outside of that get off the ground. Case in point, the existence of this thread.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
It tears you up inside, because it would have been better to have not spoken to that person at all, but you did, and now they are worse off than before.
You're right; that's a potentially tragic possibility I hadn't considered. I don't really think that this is the concern at the front of the minds of the people reluctant to share here, but I could understand how it might be. The idea that casting pearls before swine might hurt the swine is one I can credit, even though I have to admit that it makes me slightly skeptical of the value of the pearls in that situation. I imagine this is a fairly common topic of conversation among missionaries...?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by advice for robots:
I have tried. I have on several occasions tried to get into the mechanisms of how I have arrived at my strongly held beliefs. I personally consider it very useful and quite transferrable. But just the mention of it has been met with "that is not a valid way to arrive at truth," and "you can't use that as evidence." End of discussion.

Have you considered the possibility that your reasoning is faulty?

(edited for brevity's sake)

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
"Classy thread. Poster says he doesn't wish to discuss his personal experiences, so you start a thread to harangue him about them!

Nice. "

Well, Rivka, Scott said his story was not pertinent to the originnal conversation, so I started a new one.

Maybe you should try being more careful in your reading before letting the bitch out?

Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? And on that topic, is your rabbinical mom the source of your deep and abiding faith?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Tom: But you are leaving out the possibility that as they are not in the right frame of mind to be persuaded, you might cause them to believe that not only do you not love your wife, but it's just alittle bit more likely that nobody does, and nobody can.

I don't think you know what it's like to try to explain something like say God's existence, try your very best, and have the person you are talking to hate the idea of God more afterward. It tears you up inside, because it would have been better to have not spoken to that person at all, but you did, and now they are worse off than before.

Dear, maybe that's a problem with the god you worship, not a problem with you.
Perhaps, but it's not a phenomenon limited to just God. I'm reminded of the movie Patch Adams (spoilers incoming for those who are intend to watch it) where he convinces a woman that he falls in love with, that she needs to love and actively care for even those who are mentally ill. Later she ignores her misgivings about a certain person and the result is that she was murdered by the disturbed man. Dr. Adams feels personally responsible for getting her killed because he taught her "that medicine."

A woman I taught the gospel too was beaten so badly by her alcoholic abusive husband that he broke her arm among other things. He set afire many of her cherished possessions, including her Book of Mormon. I saw her one more time after that, and nobody heard from her again.

Another time as a missionary I was feeling very upset, and I should have checked myself before continuing, but I didn't, and while tracting door to door I encountered a minister in front of his church. He was hostile from the beginning and instead of calming the situation I took his bait and went into a two hour bible bashing session. In my memory how well I fared matters nothing compared to how I acted. That minister probably doesn't even let Mormon missionaries talk to him anymore and when he tells his congregation that Mormon missionaries are rude, argumentative, and poor representatives of the man the say they represent, who am I to say that's untrue? What does it matter that there were many other ministers that I got along famously with? There are still the people I spoke to, who now are more convinced they know what my God is all about, and they really don't.

----

Tom: It's not a topic that is given nearly enough emphasis, at least at my mission it wasn't. Missionaries are often regaled with stories of amazing prophets and missionaries who despite all the odds, managed to convert thousands to the truth by God's abundant power. They then think that when they encounter a prominent skeptic (like a minister) that by being bold they will invariably say what God expects them to say, and there will be much rejoicing. While that can and does happen, more likely they will get a rude rejoinder that knocks there feet out from under them. Then because the experience is not a pleasant one, they keep it to themselves when they hear other missionaries boasting about some person they outwitted in their proselyting.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
For what it's worth, none of your examples constitute a failure of evidence.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
For what it's worth, none of your examples constitute a failure of evidence.

But we are talking about hostile environments. If a person has been led to believe that *I* am a dishonest person and nothing I say can be trusted, if I have something objectively true that can help them, sure I could attempt to share it with them. But it would probably be better if I don't, as by not doing it there is still a chance they will become aware of my objective truth through another means.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Speaking more specifically of Hatrack, now, I don't think there's a piece of evidence for this topic that KoM wouldn't accept from Scott that he'd accept from his own mother.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
quote:
Originally posted by advice for robots:
I have tried. I have on several occasions tried to get into the mechanisms of how I have arrived at my strongly held beliefs. I personally consider it very useful and quite transferrable. But just the mention of it has been met with "that is not a valid way to arrive at truth," and "you can't use that as evidence." End of discussion.

Have you considered the possibility that your reasoning is faulty?


(edited for brevity's sake)

Reasoning according to whom? Everybody has their own definition of it, and those whose definitions prevail get to tell everyone else what's up.

In any case, my attempts at discussion have never gotten to the point where I can write out my reasoning for my faith. Not on Hatrack. It's not a question of whether it's faulty, it's a question of whether it's admissible.

Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
Robots: Invalid postulates lead to invalid conclusions.

All Unicorns are Purple
I have a Unicorn
Therefor, I have a Purple Unicorn.

2 invalid premises lead to a wrong conclusion.

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post 
Bonus logic lesson: the cost of entering this thread.
Any mention of purple unicorns: priceless!

Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
....

I like unicorns...

Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
There is no way on earth I would ever discuss my personal religious convictions and experiences on Hatrack again. Pearls before swine indeed.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
... It tears you up inside, because it would have been better to have not spoken to that person at all, but you did, and now they are worse off than before.

Reminds of a quote circulating, attributed to Isaac Asimov, "Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."

Interestingly, my mother went to a religious school in Hong Kong for pragmatic reasons. These were schools that were setup in an attempt to spread the Christian faiths in return for education. While the whole setup was dubious in light of cultural differences, the thing that turned her off the most was actually reading the Bible.

I guess it depends on your definition of worse [Smile]

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Or perhaps it could be indicative of Scott's desire not to give that which is of value to the dogs, or to cast pearls before swine. There's an enormous amount of difference between discussion between friends who trust one another, and a person putting their soul out there for every rake, fool, ignoramus, or average person.

Yet mormons go door to door to spread their message. Are there some things they are not allowed to say? A point at which members only get access? Actually, I've observed that there sometimes comes a time in religious discussions when the LDS members seem reluctant to elaborate. It may simply be that these conversations get tiringly circular after a while. [Smile]
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Does anyone here think that the non-believers here aren't perfectly well-aware that most of the believers on this forum -- with some exceptions -- do believe their belief is perfectly rational and based on evidence?

Oo...ooo...that't me! The "some exceptions". At least for a scientific use of the word "evidence".

ETA: I don't think that Asimov was reading the Bible "correctly" as far as I was concerned.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post 
Missionaries do not knock doors in order to explain how their beliefs are valid from a scientific standpoint. They would most likely consider a prolonged discussion in this vein a waste of their time. Their primary purpose is to introduce the Church and the gospel of Christ, and they move on if the person is not genuinely interested in investigating these things.

I don't think any Mormon here would be reluctant to sit down and discuss their beliefs and the reasons for their faith with anyone--as long as the environment was respectful. Hatrack has proven to be fairly hostile to starting such discussions, and is a poor environment to do it in for several reasons, one being the TOS.

Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not sure what "respectful" means in this context. Is it exclusive of "skeptical?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
Scott-
If you aren't willing to talk about this here, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say privately. I'm not actually trying to start a debate with you about whether your beliefs are rational or not, I'm trying to find out the thinking processes you used.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Yet mormons go door to door to spread their message. ... Actually, I've observed that there sometimes comes a time in religious discussions when the LDS members seem reluctant to elaborate.
However, no one currently posting on Hatrack is on a mission; and even if they were there definitely comes a point when going further would be (as pointed out above) violating the terms of service for this site. As has been said, why a person believes that the LDS Church (or almost any Church) is "true" (the meaning of which I suppose would be a whole other discussion) often does tie back into very personal, very emotional memories and experiences. I don't deny that there are some, including Tom, who wouldn't mind sharing these in a public forum even when they (he) knew those experiences would become the object of ridicule; however not everyone feels that way. And I present for logic and evidence of this position, many have said that they don't and then proceeded to not share those experiences here. I'm not sure what is being demanded, or was being demanded in this thread. It's quite possible you could find out what you wanted without forcing what is clearly a very personal story out of anyone. For instance I don't mind telling you that my experiences at no point involved any auditory, or visual experiences nor was the physical world around me changed as a result of anything but my direct actions. It's true without a story if I said yes to certain questions you might doubt my word, but this is an Internet forum where most of us don't even know each other's names anyways. You'd have to take a person's word if they told a story too...

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10602 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'm not sure what "respectful" means in this context. Is it exclusive of "skeptical?"

No. And certainly not one-sided either way.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Christine: As advice for robots pointed out missionaries don't go door to door specifically spelling out their own personal conversion stories. The intent is to meet the members of a household, establish a friendship, introduce the basic doctrine, and ask if they'd like to investigate further. If they'd rather not the missionaries move on (or help out in some other way if possible).

Mucus: I went to a Lutheran private school, and I had quite a few hangups about their manner of worshiping God. If your mother's school did indeed do a poor job of communicating Christianity you could say it's a positive from your perspective as she didn't convert to a false belief system, but it's still a negative from the perspective of actually understanding a belief system.

I personally have always valued understanding things accurately, even things that I do not find particularly pertinent to my life.

Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Christine
Member
Member # 8594

 - posted      Profile for Christine   Email Christine         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Christine: As advice for robots pointed out missionaries don't go door to door specifically spelling out their own personal conversion stories. The intent is to meet the members of a household, establish a friendship, introduce the basic doctrine, and ask if they'd like to investigate further. If they'd rather not the missionaries move on (or help out in some other way if possible).

Thanks for clearing that up. I've never actually had anyone knock on my door from any religious order, so I really don't know what goes on when they show up.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Pixiest
Member
Member # 1863

 - posted      Profile for The Pixiest   Email The Pixiest         Edit/Delete Post 
I had the Jehovah's Witnesses come by a coupla times... once I got them to agree with the statement "Religion is just to keep otherwise unethical people in line."
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post 
I went to a Catholic private school from grades 7-12, although the school made itself progressively more secular in the time I was there. I attended many "chapels" (not mass--more like a gathering with religious and moral overtones) and tried to participate in ceremonies when I could, like Ash Wednesday. I took comparative religion classes and tried to listen. In return I learned quite a bit about my own beliefs and gained more respect for others' beliefs. But treating it as an opportunity to learn and see things from other perspectives was good for me. It could have been very different if I had been hard-nosed about it.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
If your mother's school did indeed do a poor job of communicating Christianity ...

Luckily they did an excellent job of both communicating and understanding Christianity, so the "if" does not apply. (Indeed, their excellence in all areas of education was among the pragmatic reasons for choosing the school)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Really, Pixiest? "Just"? Do you think they really believed or agreed with that statement or is there the possibility that they gave up on you and you stopped having a real conversation? I suspect the latter.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Goldner:
"My conviction that the Church is true isn't pertinent to this conversation. How I arrived at it is: I insist that I used the logical faculties available to any person who has a normal, functioning mind, and who is capable of independent thought."

We're in a different conversation now. I'm interested in the specifics of why you think that the Mormon church is true, using reason.

Advice to peeps:

1. Don't tell people that you came to your religion through rational processes because this sets you up for failure when you are invariably unable or unwilling to demonstrate this through a logical framework when confronted by someone with a sufficient understanding of what 'rational processes' entails

2. If you goad yourself into this trap and it doesn't work out for you, don't explain your later unwillingness to explain yourself using any metaphor that implies that the people who take the time to explain the non-rationality of non-rational arguments to you are swine and/or simply ignorant to your blessing/offering/truth/thetan-cleanse/magick

Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
#1: I showed the framework-- experience, study, prior research, and critical thought. I did not show evidence. No one has complained, as far as I know, that the framework I specified is faulty as relates to rational processes. They DID complain that I'm reluctant to show evidence.

Tom noted that he thinks that people who believe the way I do may not have the same definition of rational or reasonable that he does.

#2: I certainly didn't do this.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Better advice:

Don't let people make you discuss faith in terms of science. Don't let them define your terms and push you into trying to define God as smaller than God is.

Faith isn't science and doesn't need to be.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post 
This isn't about science, per se-- it's about rationality, kmboots.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
No one has complained, as far as I know, that the framework I specified is faulty as relates to rational processes.
Although it's also not possible for us to evaluate how well you adhered to that framework, or how critically you applied those processes, without knowing the specifics. It's like you've said, "No, really, I measured the wood! It's ten feet long exactly! I measured it with a thing! You know, the thing you measure things with! And I measured it the way you measure things, by measuring!"

Without specifics, we have no way of knowing what those words mean to you.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Do you have any reason to believe that he is using a different meaning from yours except a desire that he is?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2