Lack of inoculation takes another

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I have my opinion, just like anyone else. I fail to see any compelling reason why a problem that has not existed for 30 years has any bearing on faith today.

There are dozens, maybe hundreds, of hard-to-understand moments in scripture and church history. If we each select our favorite to make our pet stumbling block, we are doing nothing more than demanding the Lord strengthen our faith on our terms, rather than on his.

"pet stumbling block"? Do you have any idea how condescending this sounds?

And again, who are you to know what God's terms are? Could it be that God actually wants us to know the truth about the priesthood ban?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

No, not everything is about you.

On the theory that JS had a mental disorder: the psychiatrist who I recently linked who wrote a speculative psychobiography of JS, from what I can tell from the reviews, argues for narcissistic personality disorder. Of course, this is in the context that JS is a fraud, not someone who believed he was truly a prophet. In the book edited by Waterman I also linked, apparently there is an author there that argues for bipolar disorder (per one of the reviews). I assume the argument is that he at times was manic, and in these periods of sleeplessness, grandiosity, delusion, and psychosis he produced his extraordinary claims.

These are facile explanations, I think, that are lazy and unsatisfying.

You sound like my wife sometimes.

Lazy and unsatisfying. Right. Sheer speculation and who cares. The whole enterprise entails making stuff up.

But with all the counterfeit Gospels written throught the ages, the fake Pauline letters, not to mention the deliberate sleights of hand on authorship and dates of composition of the real Gospels, why do you find deliberate fraud so hard to accept? What's harder to believe, Joseph's stories or that he was a fraudster? What's the most logical conclusion to be drawn from the "Book of Abraham" scrolls, based on your personal human experience? I think if MikeWaters wasn't born into Mormonism and so personally invested in it he'd be out front poking fun of it.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

You sound like my wife sometimes.

Lazy and unsatisfying. Right. Sheer speculation and who cares. The whole enterprise entails making stuff up.

But with all the counterfeit Gospels written throught the ages, the fake Pauline letters, not to mention the deliberate sleights of hand on authorship and dates of composition of the real Gospels, why do you find deliberate fraud so hard to accept? What's harder to believe, Joseph's stories or that he was a fraudster? What's the most logical conclusion to be drawn from the "Book of Abraham" scrolls, based on your personal human experience? I think if MikeWaters wasn't born into Mormonism and so personally invested in it he'd be out front poking fun of it.

Because human experience is complex. I've met people who have made extraordinary claims, some of them in the context of presumed delusions and psychosis, and others that seem perfectly rational and normal. Yet, am I to think all these people are "knowing frauds"?

If you had the gift, you would understand.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

"pet stumbling block"? Do you have any idea how condescending this sounds?

Why? Because I recognize it's something we all have, you and me included? Each of us has obstacles in our path of faith, some self-selected and some divinely imposed.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

And again, who are you to know what God's terms are? Could it be that God actually wants us to know the truth about the priesthood ban?

Sure, it's possible. I'm using my powers of reason to infer that if he wanted us to know that, he would reveal it. Since he hasn't, I'm left with the conclusion that he doesn't.

If you're suggesting that God intends it to be revealed through scholarship, I'm going to really disagree with you on that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Sure, it's possible. I'm using my powers of reason to infer that if he wanted us to know that, he would reveal it. Since he hasn't, I'm left with the conclusion that he doesn't.

If you're suggesting that God intends it to be revealed through scholarship, I'm going to really disagree with you on that.

Sure. God wouldn't want us to study it out in our minds. Let's just sit around and wait for the bolt of lightning.

Yowza.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Sure. God wouldn't want us to study it out in our minds. Let's just sit around and wait for the bolt of lightning.

Yowza.

I guess this is the point where you accuse me of resorting to gibberish and then announce, "Debate over."

Obviously taking this conversation with you seriously was a mistake. My bad.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

I guess this is the point where you accuse me of resorting to gibberish and then announce, "Debate over."

Obviously taking this conversation with you seriously was a mistake. My bad.

Classic. Accuse me of using overwrought drama to end threads in the first sentence and then do precisely that in the second sentence.

You have to admit, this one was a whopper:

"I'm using my powers of reason to infer that if he wanted us to know that, he would reveal it. Since he hasn't, I'm left with the conclusion that he doesn't."

I am still shaking my head over that one. It is self-serving logic like this that makes me question your intellectual honesty sometimes.

Once again, what makes you think that he hasn't revealed the truth behind the ban to individuals through a combination of study and promptings? How do you know he hasn't provided wisdom and comfort to thousands of people to whom this is a significant issue (AA members as the most obvious example)? Yet again you condemn or deny the possibility of individual thought and inspiration that is not fully in line with your ultra-orthodox views.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Sure, it's possible. I'm using my powers of reason to infer that if he wanted us to know that, he would reveal it. Since he hasn't, I'm left with the conclusion that he doesn't.

If you're suggesting that God intends it to be revealed through scholarship, I'm going to really disagree with you on that.

Wow. I think the fundamental premise of Tex's paradigm has finally been revealed, and the reason Tex is so at odds with some of the rest of us. Tex isn't going to convince the Dude, and the Dude's not going to convince Tex.

Personally, I think the "sit back and wait for God to reveal knowledge" perspective is damaging to the search for truth, but I guess that's just me. I'd always thought God wanted us to seek knowledge through scholarship. A worldview that discourages scholarship and learning is distasteful to me.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Wow. I think the fundamental premise of Tex's paradigm has finally been revealed, and the reason Tex is so at odds with some of the rest of us. Tex isn't going to convince the Dude, and the Dude's not going to convince Tex.

Personally, I think the "sit back and wait for God to reveal knowledge" perspective is damaging to the search for truth, but I guess that's just me. I'd always thought God wanted us to seek knowledge through scholarship. A worldview that discourages scholarship and learning is distasteful to me.

That is an amazingly different worldview, that God only reveals and man can know nothing, and is really simple variation of Nietzsche's nihilistic worldview that man can know virtually nothing.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

That is an amazingly different worldview, that God only reveals and man can know nothing, and is really simple variation of Nietzsche's nihilistic worldview that man can know virtually nothing.

Major props for responding to a quote referencing "the Dude" with a comment about nihilists.