And another thing…

“The storm had now definitely abated, and what thunder there was now grumbled over more distant hills, like a man saying ‘And another thing…’ twenty minutes after admitting he’s lost the argument.”
~ Douglas Adams, So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish42
Between the end of 2008 and the early months of 2009, I completed a series chronicling the story of how I began studying Mormonism, in some detail. I ended that series with a post wherein I created what was essentially a list of things I don’t like about Mormonism, or the top things keeping me out of the church. As the year has passed, I’ve come to a realization.
I really, really hate how I ended that series.
Something has definitely changed about me in the last year. With a few exceptions, I don’t like “lists” of what’s wrong with other religions anymore, don’t like hearing them and don’t like composing them. I’m trying to be more cautious and compassionate in discussing the problems I see in Mormonism (and other religions), but in general I’m trying to minimize my discussions of such issues in favor of discussing the things I love about my own religion.
It occurs often enough in my relationships with Latter-day Saints that someone will want to know why I’m not Mormon, and that’s usually how the question is phrased: “So, why aren’t you Mormon?” or “Why haven’t you joined the church?” For years this question made me cringe and I struggled to find a satisfactory answer to it.
For starters, there’s room for me to be offended by the question itself because the phrasing implies that I’m in the wrong for not being Mormon. “Mormon” is the answer to the ultimate question and I’m somehow deficient for having missed it. Personally, when I’ve done evangelism, I haven’t gone around asking people why they aren’t Christian; I’ve asked them about what they do believe and then attempted to share my beliefs by building on what they tell me. The average Mormon doesn’t ask me anything about my beliefs outside of, “If you’re not LDS, what are you then?” When I respond with, “Evangelical Christian,” they say, “Ah, okay,” and whether or not they understand what that means, there ends the inquiry into my beliefs.
However, I’m generous enough to understand that most people who ask me the “Why aren’t you Mormon?” question aren’t intentionally trying to be offensive, so I’m willing to let that go.
Some people who ask me that question actually are asking me to explain what it is that’s kept me out of the church. They want me to start listing problems with the church because they assume that all problems with the church must be trivial and they’re sure they’ll be able to settle my issues for me. When I was taking the missionary discussions, the missionaries even asked me to make a list of my issues with the church and give it to them.
Unfortunately, these conversations never go well either, since the people who ask typically have no idea just how convoluted and troubling LDS history can be. I wind up with one bewildered Latter-day Saint on my hands who thinks I’m either a liar or I’ve been duped by anti-Mormons. Generally our relationship gets rockier after conversations like that, so, really not a good option.
The solution to how to answer this question and not offend people finally came to me last year. It’s ridiculously simple. I was almost embarrassed that I hadn’t thought about it sooner.
So, why am I not Mormon?
I’m not Mormon because I’m an evangelical Christian, and Mormonism isn’t evangelical Christianity. It doesn’t have all of the things that are in evangelical Christianity that I love, and it has added things that aren’t in evangelical Christianity that I don’t love. I’m not Mormon because I genuinely believe in the things that I believe as an evangelical Christian, some of which are incompatible with Mormonism, and I love being what I am. It’s nothing personal.
We could go into more specifics than that, which would inevitably hint at things that I see as “problems” in Mormonism. I could tell you that I love the fact that callings in my church are based strictly on gifts and not guided by gender. I could tell you that worship through music is a sacred experience for me and it’s important that the type of music resonates with me. I could tell you that I love being part of a priesthood that includes all believers and extends back on through two millennia of history, connecting my own life to the lives of believers throughout the ages. I could tell you that I prefer a church polity that puts significant decision-making power in the hands of the local body of believers.
All of those things are true, and one could read between the lines to create a “list” of things that don’t work for me in Mormonism if one wanted to. But I think such a list is much less confrontational since it’s focused on what I love about my religion, not what I don’t like about yours.
I hope that my series has made it clear that there are a lot of things that I do admire in Mormonism. I’m glad that my journey has put me into regular contact with the LDS church. It’s refined me and made me a better evangelical Christian, and I’ve been enriched and blessed by my relationship with the church in so many ways.
I do worry about the LDS church. I have my concerns, which I’ve talked about in other places. I’d like to see the church reform someday to the point where it can be accepted into communion with the rest of the Christian world (and yes, I’d like this even though I know there are plenty of Latter-day Saints who would say they don’t want this right now).
Whatever the case, I am very grateful that God has led me to you. If you are LDS, please let me know if there’s anything I can do to have a better relationship with you.
And so ends my series. On the right note this time, I hope.
RELATED POSTS
—————-
[42] This quote also formed the basis for the latest book in the Hitchhiker series, And Another Thing… by Eoin Colfer, which I haven’t read yet. Given the tardiness of this second ending to the “Mormonism & Me” series, it seemed appropriate.

Comments

And another thing… — 49 Comments

  1. BFF: I like what you’re trying to do, both in this post and in general. I thought it might be helpful to point out that I don’t think it’s always necessary to take offense when asked why you aren’t Mormon. You worry that “the question itself…implies that I’m in the wrong for not being Mormon.” Not always. You have two really, really good reasons to be LDS (that most Americans do not have): you’re married to a Mormon and you attended BYU. Or, to put that differently, there are two reasons others might expect that you would be Mormon. And it’s not like you’re uninterested in religion either. It’s very rare to find a married couple that is waaay into two different (opposing?) religions. I know you know that; I’m just saying that the question is probably often rooted in that (you not meeting expectations) and not in any kind of accusation.
    fwiw, I think your new response is very good: “because I think my church is better.”
  2. I like your new approach, Jack. A common complaint Mormons make about anti-Mormons is that they never express in positive terms what they believe, but are strictly negative towards Mormon beliefs.
  3. Jack,
    The average Mormon doesn’t ask me anything about my beliefs outside of, “If you’re not LDS, what are you then?” When I respond with, “Evangelical Christian,” they say, “Ah, okay,” and whether or not they understand what that means, there ends the inquiry into my beliefs.
    There’s generally a reason for that. At least from my perspective. If someone says they’re evangelical Christian, two things happen. 1. A defensive wall goes up, and 2. confused thoughts come up. See, it’s not that clear what Evangelicals really believe. Mormons aren’t trained to respond in a way where they would actually be interested in discussing evangelical beliefs. This is because Evangelicals have been at the forefront of attacking Mormonism, and because Mormons don’t see what Evangelicals can add to their understanding of Jesus that they don’t already know.
    As for your answer to the question at hand, it’s an excellent answer.
  4. GREAT post. I love it! This approach is so positive, kind, and loving.
    I see where Dan’s coming from. Most Mormons think they “know” what evangelical Christianity is all about because they Bible-bashed with a high-strung Baptist on their mission once. They have no idea how diverse evangelical Christianity is, and how different your views might be from folks they see on the front lines trying to save Mormons. They might also choose not to delve deeper because they assume it will just end up in an argument and they want to avoid all that.
    For the record, I often get the same response when I tell people I’m Mormon, for probably the same reasons.
  5. Katie,
    Right. For me, the differences between Evangelical theology and Mormon theology is a stumbling block for me to even want to desire to see how I could come closer to Christ through what Evangelicals have to offer. I’m a fairly well educated guy, in all senses of the word, having studied many things of this world, both religious and non-religious. I feel my understanding of Christ cannot be enhanced that much more by Evangelical theology that it could overcome the differences that always arise in such an attempt. There is a hesitation, a mistrust. Can a Mormon take what is best of Evangelical theology, applying it in his life, without taking away from him remaining a Mormon? Or does the application of the principles of Evangelical theology require a Mormon to leave behind what he currently believes in? Because let me tell you, at this point in time, I find no better book on understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ than the Book of Mormon. I don’t mean to discount the New Testament in any way when I say this. The accounts therein are just not well organized and require a lot of outside—and extra-interpretive—help to understand. Clearly, to understand the life of the Savior, there is no better place than the four Gospels. I say this critique of course living in a society that has learned how to package information vastly superior to previous generations, but that’s why I think the Book of Mormon was written for our day. Take a passage like this from Mosiah chapter 4:
    9 Believe in God; believe that he is, and that he created all things, both in heaven and in earth; believe that he has all wisdom, and all power, both in heaven and in earth; believe that man doth not comprehend all the things which the Lord can comprehend.
    10 And again, believe that ye must repent of your sins and forsake them, and humble yourselves before God; and ask in sincerity of heart that he would forgive you; and now, if you believe all these things see that ye do them.
    11 And again I say unto you as I have said before, that as ye have come to the knowledge of the glory of God, or if ye have known of his goodness and have tasted of his love, and have received a remission of your sins, which causeth such exceedingly great joy in your souls, even so I would that ye should remember, and always retain in remembrance, the greatness of God, and your own nothingness, and his goodness and long-suffering towards you, unworthy creatures, and humble yourselves even in the depths of humility, calling on the name of the Lord daily, and standing steadfastly in the faith of that which is to come, which was spoken by the mouth of the angel.
    12 And behold, I say unto you that if ye do this ye shall always rejoice, and be filled with the love of God, and always retain a remission of your sins; and ye shall grow in the knowledge of the glory of him that created you, or in the knowledge of that which is just and true.
    13 And ye will not have a mind to injure one another, but to live peaceably, and to render to every man according to that which is his due.
    Can a Mormon who is happy with this kind of teaching found in the Book of Mormon find something within Evangelical theology that does not take away from what he now believes in, but adds to it to a more perfect understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
  6. It’s interesting that you bring that up, Dan. Part of the thesis proposal draft I just submitted is set to include a chapter arguing that the Book of Mormon is thoroughly Protestant in theology and doctrine. My underlying belief is that when Mormons have good experiences with the Book of Mormon, they’re actually having good experiences with proto-Mormon, demi-Protestantism.
    ;)
    Gotta run right now.
  7. Okay, I have a bit more time to comment now.
    BFF, Mormons were asking me “Why are you not Mormon?” before I’d gone to BYU or got married. Pretty much when I’d been hanging around the ward for a few months and hadn’t gotten baptized, they assumed something was wrong with me.
    Katie and Dan, I think you both make good points. It could be that they’re uncomfortable with my identification as an evangelical. I think it’s slightly more likely that they don’t know what that is and don’t want to appear ignorant by probing further. I agree that a lot of evangelicals probably have a similar reaction to Mormonism, either feeling hostile about it or not knowing what it is.
    I guess I’m just lamenting that we all can’t be more open to asking each other about our religions. You know, it’s funny, ever since Tim did his “how to talk to the Mormon missionaries” post, I’ve been very open about asking Mormons to tell me why they believe in the Book of Mormon. You’d be amazed how many of them kind of clam up and change the subject or don’t seem to want to talk about it. Wasn’t the reaction I was expecting.
  9. Katie L. said:
    Most Mormons think they “know” what evangelical Christianity is all about because they Bible-bashed with a high-strung Baptist on their mission once. They have no idea how diverse evangelical Christianity is, and how different your views might be from folks they see on the front lines trying to save Mormons.
    And I have found the reverse true as well. We’re not all alike by any means, although we probably have a lower standard deviation than evangelicals do.
    Dan asked:
    Can a Mormon take what is best of Evangelical theology, applying it in his life, without taking away from him remaining a Mormon? Or does the application of the principles of Evangelical theology require a Mormon to leave behind what he currently believes in?
    I would answer yes to the first question (and the same in reverse). I’ll explain by quoting myself:
    My general observation is that the best of evangelicalism (“best” as I use the term, of course) is remarkably similar to the best of Mormonism. There’s an emphasis on grace — but not cheap grace. There’s an emphasis on who we’re becoming, not the checklist of the things we have to do. There’s an emphasis not on the initial human act of salvation (“accepting Jesus as your personal savior” in evangelical terms, agreeing to baptism in LDS terms) but on what it means to live as a Christian (“enduring to the end” in LDS terms, sanctification in evangelical terms).
    Dan also said:
    I find no better book on understanding the Gospel of Jesus Christ than the Book of Mormon. I don’t mean to discount the New Testament in any way when I say this. The accounts therein are just not well organized and require a lot of outside—and extra-interpretive—help to understand.
    Not to discount the Book of Mormon in any way, there’s nothing that speaks to me in scripture better than some portions of the New Testament do. Romans 12, Hebrews 11, 1 Corinthians 13 and portionsn of James and 1 John in particular are outstanding.
    Not well organized? I don’t see that as all. Paul and the author of Hebrews are quite profound in laying out their arguments. If you find the New Testament hard to understand, try reading it in modern English if you haven’t done so already. It’ll really come alive.
    Jack said:
    My underlying belief is that when Mormons have good experiences with the Book of Mormon, they’re actually having good experiences with proto-Mormon, demi-Protestantism.
    That sounds like what I told the missionaries umpteen years ago (not in those words, of course), and if I were still Protestant I’d say the same thing. I’ve long said that with the exception of a half-dozen or fewer problematic verses (particularly those relating to the Fall), many evangelical churches could accept the Book of Mormon as scripture and not have to change a thing in their beliefs. Arguably, it’s even more Trinitarian than the Bible is.
    Jack also said:
    I’ve been very open about asking Mormons to tell me why they believe in the Book of Mormon. You’d be amazed how many of them kind of clam up and change the subject or don’t seem to want to talk about it.
    Interesting. Have you tried asking evangelicals why they believe in the Bible? I’d be curious to know how the response is different, and if the “clamming up” is a response to you or to the question itself.
  10. Jack,
    I’ve been very open about asking Mormons to tell me why they believe in the Book of Mormon. You’d be amazed how many of them kind of clam up and change the subject or don’t seem to want to talk about it. Wasn’t the reaction I was expecting.
    That is an interesting observation. I think the answer might be that Mormons are not sure how to answer outside of the missionary talking point. It’s understandable because that’s how we are taught. If you ask me, I’ll tell you all about what I think about the Book of Mormon, because I’ve pondered on that question numerous times because I’ve been challenged by others to do so. I think it also depends on where you are. The Mormons I know here in New York City are sharp and very smart in both the gospel and the world around them. New York tends to require that of people who want to get ahead.
  11. Eric,
    Not to discount the Book of Mormon in any way, there’s nothing that speaks to me in scripture better than some portions of the New Testament do. Romans 12, Hebrews 11, 1 Corinthians 13 and portionsn of James and 1 John in particular are outstanding.
    Indeed portions of the New Testament are truly magnificent, and you do pick out some of the best. I would add to that list John chapters 12-15.
    Not well organized? I don’t see that as all. Paul and the author of Hebrews are quite profound in laying out their arguments. If you find the New Testament hard to understand, try reading it in modern English if you haven’t done so already. It’ll really come alive.
    Indeed, I’ve been reading the NRSV and have found it to be far easier to understand. It’s hard in debates such as these because you try to speak for yourself and also answer a projection of overall Mormonism. Few Mormons read the Bible outside the King James Version. They should. It’s ironic actually because in many cases, the NRSV is closer to the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible than the King James Version. Take for instance, Hebrews 11:1. The KJV is:
    Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
    in the footnotes of the LDS Bible, we get the following from Joseph Smith’s translation:
    GR assurance, basis, foundation.
    JST Heb. 11: 1 . . . assurance of things hoped for . . .
    They’re letting us know that the Greek for the word “substance” is “assurance, basis, foundation” and that the JST believes the word should be “assurance.” Now the NRSV:
    Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
    Much better. :)
  12. FWIW, I’ve never received what I consider a compelling or convincing answer to the question “Why do you believe in the Bible?” when asked of a non-Mormon.
    I asked it quite often on my mission, and often I got, “Because it’s been around for so long.”
    To stand the test of time is important, but the Qur’an has also been around for quite awhile also, and that doesn’t make it the word of God.
    Recently, I’ve had a lot of people tell me that their belief in the Bible is based on archealogy and history. I think that is a bad answer for many reasons, and I’m sure you’ve all heard them before so I won’t go into it.
    My final point – talking with people within one’s own religion lends itself to a level of candor and sincerity that is almost impossible to achieve in interfaith discussions. So it may just be that expressing belief in the Book of Mormon / Bible to someone outside of one’s own religion is difficult to do in a manner that is sincere, substantive, convincing, and free of ulterior motives (conversion, witnessing, etc.).
  13. The reluctance of Latter-day Saints to answer my question on the Book of Mormon has surprised me because I thought all Latter-day Saints were supposed to develop testimonies of it and share them. I thought belief in the Book of Mormon was a foundational testimony-building experience.
    I don’t think the same thing goes for evangelicals and the Bible. We’re encouraged to develop narratives of how we came to belief in Christ. We tend to just take it for granted that the Bible is true, which leads to poor reasons given when asked about it. Rarely do our evangelism techniques center around getting people to believe that the Bible is true.
    For the record, I’m not looking for convincing accounts of why one believes in the Book of Mormon. If their only reason is “I read it and prayed about it and God told me it’s true,” that’s fine. Most of them aren’t even giving me that though.
  14. I thought all Latter-day Saints were supposed to develop testimonies of [the Book of Mormon] and share them.
    I think members are encouraged much more to develop testimonies of Jesus Christ as Savior (although studying the BoM may be one way to do that).
    I know the missionary program often focuses on the Book of Mormon, partly because (I’m assuming) many prospects have a Christian background and thus are inclined to be receptive to its message. But from what I’ve seen, the attitude among people who grew up in the church is kind of like what you say about evangelicals and the Bible — Mormons assume the book is true, take it at face value and don’t really bother with the details of why.
    I remember back in the days before I joined the church asking many people why they were members of the LDS church as opposed to some other church (or none at all), and I don’t recall getting many answers that related to the Book of Mormon. Their testimony of the Church more often had to do with its emphasis on families and/or moral living, because they believed it is the true church, because they believed that Joseph Smith and/or then-prophet Gordon B. Hinckley were true prophets, because of social/family ties, and so on. I just don’t recall hearing that the BoM either led them to the Church or was keeping them in. It was something that would affirm their beliefs rather than something that led them to belief.
    That said, your observation surprises me a bit too. Unless they’re suspicious of you, I would think you’d be getting a different response from church members than you are.
  15. Unless they’re suspicious of you, I would think you’d be getting a different response from church members than you are.
    Who would ever be suspicious of me? I have the face of an angel . . .
    ;)
    For all the time Mormons have spent telling me again and again to read the Book of Mormon and pray about it, I’m a little surprised that more of them don’t practice what they preach. I understand the phenomenon of growing up in a religion and taking things for granted, but when I first began studying the church, it felt like my LDS friends regularly bothered me about it, and I still get it from time to time.
    I think that part of it is that people are surprised at being directly asked about it instead of having to work themselves up to sharing their faith. If someone walked up to me and asked me how I accepted Jesus Christ as my personal savior or could I explain the Four Spiritual Laws to them, I’d be a little surprised.
  16. Four Spiritual Laws
    So what are the Four Spiritual Laws? I’ve never heard of this.
    BTW, because I don’t know where else to comment on this, I just read the “plausible deniability” link in your sideblog. Lame. (Not the link, just that the church tried to pretend it wasn’t really doing what it was doing.)
  17. The four spiritual laws are Evangelicalism 101. They’ve been around since at least the 1960s. You can find them here.
    Re “plausible deniability”: Political junkie that I am, I’m trying to find precisely who wrote it (or signed it, anyway) and what its context was. So far, the news and blog articles I have found have made neither of those clear.
    FWIW, I think the plaintiffs here are wrong on the constitutional issue, and I’m critical of the judge for allowing them to bring in so much evidence that is irrelevant to what the Constitution says; it’s relevant to the social debate, but not the constitutional one. But I agree with them that the trial should have been made viewable by the general public.
  20. I’m glad you posted the link. After spending about an hour earlier today (an hour I should have spent doing constructive things) trying to verify the quote, I came to the very tentative conclusion that the “plausible deniability” was someone’s characterization. The fact that nobody was attributing the quote to a real person, and that the mainstream media weren’t backing up the blog accounts, waved a red flag for me. Things just didn’t add up. Now I know why. Thanks again.
  21. I thought it smelled rather funny when I first saw it, too. That no source or names involved were quoted, the initial story I saw just listed it as “a document” which later evolved to “an e-mail,” etc. That’s why I side-blogged it with no additional commentary.
  22. Hi, it’s your neighborhood legal nerd here…
    Brown v. Board of Education was decided partly on a big hodgepodge of social and psychological statistics. That approach has been criticized as a rather weak manner of supporting constitutional argument, but its use in the marriage debate is hardly unfounded.
    That is all.
  23. True.
    And to defend the court somewhat, this is a nonjury case, and courts in nonjury cases have more latitude to accept evidence and see later how it sticks. It’ll be interesting to see how the defense presents its case; so far I haven’t been impressed. I thought its arguments for closing the trial to streaming video were lame at best.
    My comments should be seen in light of the fact that despite my mild left-of-center tendencies, I’m somewhat of a “strict constructionist” when it comes to the Constitution. As much as I am concerned about big-money influence on politics, for example, I think the Supreme Court made basically the right decision yesterday in voiding much of campaign finance reform, because the First Amendment is close to absolute. Similarly, I could readily endorse the right single-payer health plan — but I question whether even the milder proposals under consideration aren’t stretching the elastic clause or interstate-commerce clause beyond recognition.
    In this particular case, I think the Tenth Amendment makes marriage a state issue, not a federal one. So if I were on the Supreme Court, I’d probably uphold Measure 8 but also declare DOMA unconstitutional. What a legal mess that would make!
    Sorry about the diversion, Jack. Sometimes I can’t help myself.
  25. I’ve been thinking about answering Jack’s question about the Book of Mormon, but I think one of the problems is that it’s such a complex document that “why I believe” ultimately becomes this multifaceted eight-page answer, especially when “God told me it was true” is unsatisfactory to the listener.
    Nobody’s looking for that in a conversation. But, stay tuned. If I can get my head above water with the Seminary thing I might be able to sit and write.
  26. For the record, I’m not looking for convincing accounts of why one believes in the Book of Mormon. If their only reason is “I read it and prayed about it and God told me it’s true,” that’s fine. Most of them aren’t even giving me that though.
    I think we are so used to being scoffed at when giving that answer that we do feel pressure to come up with something “better.”
    I’m surprised a testimony of the Bible isn’t more integral to evangelical Christianity’s testimony of Jesus. Without it, we would know almost nothing about Him, and very little of His divinity, and so I have always assumed that a testimony of the Bible was as foundational, if not more so, than a testimony of the BofM is for a LDS. Especially since people spend so much time raking us over the coals for going beyond the Bible. As a teenager and a missionary I heard over and over and over that we can’t have scripture beyond the Bible. But if a testimony of the Bible isn’t all that important, why is it such a big deal that we stick solely to the Bible as scripture?
    This isn’t coming out right, but I hope you get my point. How can a religion say that the Bible constitutes all of God’s revealed word without placing importance on having a testimony of that book?
  27. Moreover, when being drilled on that point, I always felt it a very fair question to respond, “How do you know the Bible is true?”
  28. Tom, there’s a lot that I could say about this issue, but first a couple of questions for you to help me understand better:
    Do you think Mormons put too much emphasis on reading the Book of Mormon and praying about it in their missionary outreach? If yes, what should they be asking people to do instead in order to be convinced of the truthfulness of the church?
    I ask because while I agree that it’s incredibly common for Protestants to object to Mormonism on the grounds of adding to the closed canon, I think this objection is poorly thought-out and I’d like to see less of it. If Protestants never brought this point up to Mormons, I’d be fine with it.
  29. The solution to how to answer this question and not offend people finally came to me last year. It’s ridiculously simple. I was almost embarrassed that I hadn’t thought about it sooner.
    So, why am I not Mormon?
    I’m not Mormon because I’m an evangelical Christian, and Mormonism isn’t evangelical Christianity. It doesn’t have all of the things that are in evangelical Christianity that I love, and it has added things that aren’t in evangelical Christianity that I don’t love. I’m not Mormon because I genuinely believe in the things that I believe as an evangelical Christian, some of which are incompatible with Mormonism, and I love being what I am.
    I’m not evangelical Christian myself, but I’m impressed with the sentiment and find it to be an incredibly positive and healthy approach. Which is why I nominated this post for an award, as you know. ;)
  30. Jack – I’m finally getting back to you on this. I hope you’ll humor me.
    I think the amount of emphasis placed on reading the Book of Mormon and praying about it is appropriate. It really is the keystone of our religion. All questions about the veracity of modern prophets, revelation, etc. stand or fall with the veracity of the Book of Mormon.
  31. Parenthetically, I think it is appropriate to ask people to pray about any point of doctrine or practice. The Lord answers those prayers, too. ;)
  32. I think the amount of emphasis placed on reading the Book of Mormon and praying about it is appropriate. It really is the keystone of our religion. All questions about the veracity of modern prophets, revelation, etc. stand or fall with the veracity of the Book of Mormon.
    That’s total bullcrap rhetoric, and completely riddled with flawed logic and buried assumptions.
  34. Ah, yes Kullervo. The paragon in not believing bullcrap rhetoric, who never uses flawed logic and buried assumptions. Oh, and let’s not forget how respectful he is of others…
    BTW, having learned Kullervo served in Dusseldorf, well, ich kann nur sagen dass ich nicht ueberrascht bin.
    Tomchik, I think recognizing (and describing) what those assumptions are is a good thing to do. But, Kullervo, I appreciate Andrew’s agnostic approach (from irresistible disgrace) much better than this militant atheist viewpoint. It just comes across as so bitter, like you really should belong in the same therapy group some other anti-Mormons belong in.
  36. To put it another way, I think that smart people can decide to believe in Mormonism for a lot of different reasons. But I seriously object to the faulty logic chains that are regularly employed in Mormonism to convince people that they should reasonably believe something they don’t necessarily have a reason to believe.
    I’m not saying that the church is a cult, but fast-talking quasi-logic like that is the kind of tactic that uncomfortably controlling organizations habitually use to take people from a comfortable startingpoint down a problenmatic logical chain and ultimately to conclusions that do not necessarily follow from the starting point.
    If you want to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, and that the modern Church is God’s one and only true church on earth, then by all means go ahead. But if you have started with a belief in the Book of Mormon and then inferred/concluded those other points of faith from the BoM as a starting point, you need to seriously examine yourself and disentangle the things you really believe from the things you have been convinced should logically follow from the things you really believe.
    I am a bit bitter about it, because I was raised and taught to believe that this was all sound and logical enough to base absolute certainty on, and to take major risks and make major life-changes that were ultimately more favorable to the Church as an organization than they were to me. That’s shitty. It’s okay to be bitter about that.
  37. Um, you know he didn’t call you an atheist, right?
    It would be a major thread jack if we got off on the tangent of the assumptions built into the statement I made. If Jack wants to make a new blog post on it some time, I’d love to discuss the nuances.
    Jack, I’m not sure where you are going with having asked me that question, but I’d love your feedback when you get a few minutes.
  39. Um, you know he didn’t call you an atheist, right?
    Yes he did. He said “But, Kullervo, I appreciate Andrew’s agnostic approach (from irresistible disgrace) much better than this militant atheist viewpoint.” For me to take a militant atheist viewpoint, I would have to be a militant atheist.
  42. Kullervo – or you could be someone who happens to have one viewpoint in common with a militant atehist…
    He called the viewpoint atheist. Not you.
  43. He called the viewpoint atheist. Not you.
    Exactly, it was a totally random, out-of-the-blue swipe at so-called “militant” atheists. Sheesh, I’m sorry that I accidentally subscribed to comments on this thread…
  44. That’s a distinction without a difference. I mean, you believe in God, right? So do Muslims. I can’t call your belief in God a “Muslim viewpoint,” because it coincidentally corresponds with something a Muslim might say. That would be stupid.
    Unless either you are a Mulsim, or your viewpoint is somehow uniquely or characteristically Muslim, it doesn;t make sense to call it a Muslim viewpoint.
    There’s nothing atheist about pointing out the flaws in someone else’s logical chain. If you say Book of Mormon therefore J. Smith therefore Modern LDS Church, and I reply with “does not follow,” I’m not taking an atheist viewpoint. I’m actually debating you on your own terms. You have suggested that y and z follow logically from x. I’m saying that they don’t.
  45. That’s right Tomchik.
    I can use the crazy JW viewpoint without being a crazy JW. Therefore, Kullervo can use the militant atheistic viewpoint without being a militant atheist.
    See Kullervo, that’s just some of the buried assumptions, flawed logic, and crappy rhetoric that YOU use too. I’m not saying that makes you a terrible person, just inconsistent to bashing LDS for believing things that are incoherent to you, and maybe even believing it for bad logic. Got news for you, humans don’t behave rationally. Once you get over that cognitive dissonance and act 100% logically, then maybe you can cast stones at the rest of us.
  46. So, my point is, PC can’t be stupid enough to assume that my viewpoint is somehow uniquely atheist, because it plainly is not. So I am supposing that he must think I am an atheist. And I’m not.
  47. See Kullervo, that’s just some of the buried assumptions, flawed logic, and crappy rhetoric that YOU use too. I’m not saying that makes you a terrible person, just inconsistent to bashing LDS for believing things that are incoherent to you, and maybe even believing it for bad logic. Got news for you, humans don’t behave rationally. Once you get over that cognitive dissonance and act 100% logically, then maybe you can cast stones at the rest of us.
    It has nothing to do with whether humans behave irrationally. Of course they do. But Tomchick’s (and the Church’s) assertion that all of Mormondom follows logically from the Book of Mormon is an attempt to make a logical statement. On its own terms, it fails.
    You seem to be saying that it’s reasonable to believe something based entirely on logic that you admit is flawed. That’s stupid. Either you need to assert that the logic is sound (good luck), or that there are other reasonable reasons to believe that do not depend on an admittedly flawed logical chain.
  48. Again, I’m 100% comfortable with the implied assumptions, which we can discuss at another time.
    You are correct, Kullervo, that, relying solely on the principles of logic, the truth of the Book of Mormon only guarantees that Joseph Smith was a prophet at the time he translated it. But logic can never tell you if the Book of Mormon is true, so relying on logic as the sole tool for discernment probably isn’t the best approach.
    Thread jack successful!! Not to mention that I’ve sidetracked the traffic of the entire blog. FTW!
  49. You are correct, Kullervo, that, relying solely on the principles of logic, the truth of the Book of Mormon only guarantees that Joseph Smith was a prophet at the time he translated it.
    Not even that.
Categories:

Related Post:



0 коментарі:

Post a Comment

ClobberBlog | Mormonism, Evangelical Christianity