Snow and Vort

[Justice]

Excited to see your names as the title of a thread? :)

Well, I want to assure you that I have a genuine interest in what I'm about to ask. I'm not trying to make a point about anything that's been said previous, nor do I have some plan to try to trap you with any certain answers.

I know we disagree about some things. I know we have had differences of opinion, and maybe even heated differences. The truth is, though, I do think you are good people, just like the rest of us, seeking answers to the questions you have, just like the rest of us.

My only reason for asking these questions is I'm genuinely curious to hear your answers.

Having said all that, in an anti-climactic fashion, here are the questions:

Have you ever just felt something was right in spite of the lack of evidence?

Or, have you just felt something was right even when the evidence seems to point you in a different direction?

(I'd be curious to hear everyone else's answers, too)

[Guest mormonmusic]

Excited to see your names as the title of a thread? :)

Have you ever just felt something was right in spite of the lack of evidence?

Definitely. That's how I developed a testimony. It was clear that evidence could point to 50 buzzillion different conclusions. So could the facts in the hands of 5 different intelligent people. They could make persuasive arguments in any direction, particularly if the truth is unseen and unverifiable.

Have you ever felt something was wrong in spite of evidence it is true?

Yes -- usually when someone is trying to deceive me with false "evidence".

Edited December 19, 2009 by mormonmusic

[Taldarin]

My brain can't really accept something if there is complete lack of evidence.

Like, for example, I believe in God, because I believe he has shown me that He is there. Some things have happened that I use as evidence but many would not. Weird coincidences at the right times, answered prayers, etc. It may not be a clinical study or some guy with a PhD telling me how it is, but I have some of my own evidence in some cases. But for everything else, yes, it requires evidence.

Evidence is the basis of how we can know what is truth and what is not. It is essential.

I think Vort just likes to make people think and re-think about things more by taking the other side. Maybe I'm wrong, but I like that. There's two sides to every story. As for Snow, he just seems to be a little more on the cynical side? haha I don't know.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Taldarin

[Traveler]

Excited to see your names as the title of a thread? :)

Well, I want to assure you that I have a genuine interest in what I'm about to ask. I'm not trying to make a point about anything that's been said previous, nor do I have some plan to try to trap you with any certain answers.

I know we disagree about some things. I know we have had differences of opinion, and maybe even heated differences. The truth is, though, I do think you are good people, just like the rest of us, seeking answers to the questions you have, just like the rest of us.

My only reason for asking these questions is I'm genuinely curious to hear your answers.

Having said all that, in an anti-climactic fashion, here are the questions:

Have you ever just felt something was right in spite of the lack of evidence?

Or, have you just felt something was right even when the evidence seems to point you in a different direction?

(I'd be curious to hear everyone else's answers, too)

My opinion of you has just been elevated even though it was quite high anyway.

For the record I have felt something was right despite or even contrary to my own judgment. On one occasion this has resulted in a life of someone I loved being preserved. I have also taken my own assessment over an exceptional strong feeling something else was right with disastrous consequences. From one such thing I am still struggling to overcome the consequences.

The Traveler

[Moksha]

Both Snow and Vort are strong individuals with well developed opinions. Visually, their opinions would be analogous to Ben Raines neck.

[dazed-and-confused]

yes to both.

[Snow]

Have you ever just felt something was right in spite of the lack of evidence?

Absolutely.

The entire basis of my faith - that God exists, that Christ is the Redeemer, that God can and does reveal his will to mankind, that the gospel has been restored in the latter days is, arguably, without much direct evidence. It's a matter of faith, not knowledge.

The problem is - persisting in a belief, for example a belief against evolution or the age of the earth, in spite of significant evidence and /or reason to the contrary.

Or, have you just felt something was right even when the evidence seems to point you in a different direction?

(I'd be curious to hear everyone else's answers, too)

I dunno. Sometimes there is the "appearance" of evidence, for example supposed evidence that the BoM is a fraud, that upon further inspection turns out to be something other than legitimate or convincing evidence. So, I'd answer that sometimes you have to give the benefit of the doubt until more is known. Yes - I realize that results in a big grey zone and I engage in that grey zone just like everyone does. I'd just say, and I'm biased in this regard, that my grey area is more defined and rational than that of some others who approach the gospel and scripture and history from a more dogmatic and fundamentalist perspective; and, I am more honest about what I believe and why. I do not equate my opinions (faith and testimony) with absolute truth.

[Vort]

Excited to see your names as the title of a thread? :)

Names? I thought you were asking me about winter sports.

Have you ever just felt something was right in spite of the lack of evidence?

Strictly speaking, no. "Feeling" something is right constitutes evidence in many instances. Consider Alma 32.

More generally speaking, as a child I used to go with whatever I wanted, because it felt right (even when it was wrong). As an adult, I have tried to reign in my impulsiveness and think things through. However, one thing I have learned as an adult is to "trust my gut" in decisions like jobs and child discipline. But again, I consider those gut feelings to be a sort of evidence, so I experience no cognitive dissonance.

Or, have you just felt something was right even when the evidence seems to point you in a different direction?

Yes; see above. But such examples are invariably about how I conduct my life, not about scriptural glosses.

[Vort]

I think Vort just likes to make people think and re-think about things more by taking the other side. Maybe I'm wrong, but I like that.

Thanks for the charitable assessment, but in fact, I rarely or never take positions just for the sake of argument. If I do, I preface it with something like "Let's suppose for the sake of argument that..."

I agree with Snow that people tend not to think very hard about much of what they believe, and I consider that to be A Bad Thing®. But I seldom if ever lay claim to a position that I don't believe. (I will sometimes push a position much harder than I actually feel about it, e.g. Don't lie to your kids about Santa Claus.)

[Justice]

Man, I'm with you on Santa Claus. But, my feelings on the matter give way to my wife's need to give them Santa Claus.

I am a thinker. I think about things too much, I think. I over-think things, I think.

Most of my "thinking" is pondering (or is it synonymous anyway?). I get some of my best insights when I ponder. Often, I receive light and knowledge about the scriptures long after my scriptures are closed.

I don't think a person can think too much or too often about life and God. It is partly what He means to always remember Him, or to hold Him in remembrance.

Yep, Alma 32 is a very good example.

And, yes Snow, the dreaded "appearance of evidence" you speak about it tricky. I'd venture to say we all have our own idea as to what constitutes as evidence. It's possible that what we feel may give more emphasis to something that would normally not seem like very good evidence. It's very hard to separate what we believe from evidence.

Thank you for answering.

[Snow]

I'd venture to say we all have our own idea as to what constitutes as evidence. .

Maybe so but because someone has their own idea about what constitutes evidence doesn't necessarily make it evidence. An acceptance of what an anonymous person penned 3000 years ago as religious writing is not evidence for, say, a global flood. It's the origin of a dogma but it is not any sort of reliable, significant evidence of a real such event.

[Justice]

Yes, I really do sympathize with what you're saying. I know it sounds like I don't, but I really do.

At the same time, I have to stand and say, However:

D&C 20:

11 Proving to the world that the holy scriptures are true, and that God does inspire men and call them to his holy work in this age and generation, as well as in generations of old;

21 Wherefore, the Almighty God gave his Only Begotten Son, as it is written in those scriptures which have been given of him.

35 And we know that these things are true and according to the revelations of John, neither adding to, nor diminishing from the prophecy of his book, the holy scriptures, or the revelations of God which shall come hereafter by the gift and power of the Holy Ghost, the voice of God, or the ministering of angels.

D&C 68:

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

D&C 33:

16 And the Book of Mormon and the holy scriptures are given of me for your instruction; and the power of my Spirit quickeneth all things.

D&C 10:

63 And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them.

And then...

Moroni 10:

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

The purpose for the scriptures is not to give man evidence so they can believe the stories, rather they give God the chance to let the Spirit work in man as they read the stories so they can believe in Jesus Christ.

If we read them with doubt, looking for evidence or proof (or a sign), we will not find it.

Man tells you the things in the scriptures can't be true because this or that can't happen.

We just need to believe. I don't have anything else. That's the best I can do. Am I suggesting we laugh at science? Certainly not. But, whatever man discovers through man's devices is limited and will change as he gains more evidence. The truths in the scriptures will not change; God will not gain more evidence and His knoweldge is eternal.

If you can't bring yourself to believe in some of the miracles or wonders in scripture, for whatever reason, then continue believing in Christ, and one day I have no doubt you will begin to believe in all His words.

2 Nephi 33:

10 And now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and all ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good.

Edited December 19, 2009 by Justice

[zippy_do46]

The "proof is in the puddin"

[MorningStar]

I'm disappointed. I thought this was going to be about Vort's love of snow and winter fashions like coats with pretty, fuzzy hoods.

[Dravin]

I'm disappointed. I thought this was going to be about Vort's love of snow and winter fashions like coats with pretty, fuzzy hoods.

It won't be about Fashion, but maybe we can get them to do a two-man production of A Christmas Carol for us?

[Justice]

Who will play the scrooge?

[Dravin]

Who will play the scrooge?

I say Vort, he is the board curmudgeon after all. :)

[Elphaba]

Who will play the scrooge?

Aaahumm. . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Elphaba prances around the stage in her nightgown):

I am as light as a feather, I am as happy as an angel, I am as merry as a school-boy. I am as giddy as a drunken man. A merry Christmas to every-body! A happy New Year to all the world! Hallo here! Whoop! Hallo!

(Elphaba stops prancing and puts on some clothes.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, do I get the part? NO????

Well, then. Bah! Humbug!

Elph

[Vort]

Aaahumm. . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Elphaba prances around the stage in her nightgown):

I am as light as a feather, I am as happy as an angel, I am as merry as a school-boy. I am as giddy as a drunken man. A merry Christmas to every-body! A happy New Year to all the world! Hallo here! Whoop! Hallo!

(Elphaba stops prancing and puts on some clothes.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, do I get the part? NO????

Well, then. Bah! Humbug!

Elph

Thanks for trying, but The Eyes have it.

Scrooge, Marley, & Vort.

[phatbac]

i dont mean to get off the scrooge tangent.....

I have definately felt somethign was not right despite not having a lot of evidence or even evidence that everythign was alright. i have felt wrong in certain areas or places where i shouldnt have been even though everythign seemed alright. as far as knowing something is right despite not a lot of evidence isnt that what having personal revelation is all about?

[Hemidakota]

Excited to see your names as the title of a thread? :)

Well, I want to assure you that I have a genuine interest in what I'm about to ask. I'm not trying to make a point about anything that's been said previous, nor do I have some plan to try to trap you with any certain answers.

I know we disagree about some things. I know we have had differences of opinion, and maybe even heated differences. The truth is, though, I do think you are good people, just like the rest of us, seeking answers to the questions you have, just like the rest of us.

My only reason for asking these questions is I'm genuinely curious to hear your answers.

Having said all that, in an anti-climactic fashion, here are the questions:

Have you ever just felt something was right in spite of the lack of evidence?

Or, have you just felt something was right even when the evidence seems to point you in a different direction?

(I'd be curious to hear everyone else's answers, too)

I noticed what starts as a whispering voice of the Spirit with a given subject, when we apply faith in what is being given will later be confirmed by the Holy Ghost. I have to agree with Miss Halfaway, latter portion of our lives as we grow towards the fullness, we learn how to be receiptants of this type of teaching. When applied, we later are given it by confirmation.

[Guest]

What I really love about the restored gospel is it is more in harmony with proven science than just the Bible. A good example is the Creation story. There are tons of information brought forth by Joseph Smith that expands on the Bible prior to science getting that "evidence".

I truly believe that the scriptures and science work hand-in-hand to give us better understanding. They shouldn't work against each other but together. As in, the purpose of science is not to prove the scriptures are false - but to give us a better understanding of our own interpretation of it.

But then there are those that even after the restored gospel it still remains a question - like the flood. Science and the scriptures are still not in harmony with this one. Because, even after you try to adjust your interpretation of the gospel based on scientific evidence, you start unraveling important pieces of the flood story that ties into doctrine (Justice gave a lot of these dangers when we try to localize the flood in that other thread).

So, in these cases, what do you do? Put more weight on science over scripture? Try to say scripture is unresolved for lack of evidence? Or do you, instead, stick with the global flood story until science catches up? I'd like to hear Justice's and Snow's answer on this one. For the record, I have no answer to this question. I don't delve into the scriptures with this much detail, because to me, it doesn't matter one bit one way or the other.

[HiJolly]

So, in these cases, what do you do? Put more weight on science over scripture? Try to say scripture is unresolved for lack of evidence? Or do you, instead, stick with the global flood story until science catches up? I'd like to hear Justice's and Snow's answer on this one. For the record, I have no answer to this question. I don't delve into the scriptures with this much detail, because to me, it doesn't matter one bit one way or the other.

As I said in the "Noah's flood" thread,

I don't believe there was a literal global flood within the past, say, 100,000 years; I don't believe mankind was produced, created or formed in a manner different from all the animals; I don't believe that God ever wrote scripture Himself (exept maybe the 10 commandments), including Jesus; I believe in scripture as truth and divine and inspired but don't believe they are perfect or infallible or even correct when it comes to scientific or physical facts; I don't believe Adam lived 6,000 years ago, but rather, probably 25,000 years ago;

I *do* believe in miracles; I believe in atonement/redemption/forgiveness; I believe God lives and loves us and *does* interfere in our lives continually; I love the scriptures and believe they are the key to understanding God and His dealings with man; I believe that the Church, while not perfect, is the Kingdom of God on earth; I believe that Joseph Smith was a great, good man with real, human flaws; I believe that membership in the Church is critical to becoming more like Christ; I believe that God will save all who come unto Him in humility and with a broken heart.

Some of the above where I say I "believe", I actually do *know*. :)

I think the topics covered in the second paragraph above are what REALLY matter.

HiJolly