response to an anti-mormon

[Guest saintish]

Her is the conversation in its entirety

Him:TRUE OR FALSE: Alma 32 forms and articulates the theological basis for 'The capstone of Mormonism': "I believe because I want to believe."

Me:"I believe because I want to believe." Isn't that a requirement to believe anything? I'd say most won't believe anything they don't want to believe.

Him: Thank you for your answer. But isn't believing in things that contradicts objective, external, physical evidence called, "Psychosis"?

Me: I suppose, if thats the label you want to put on it. Its not like we belive that the world was created in 7 days, there was a flood that covered the whole earth, that a man could turn a stick into a snake, hit a rock and make water come out, heal the sick, or raise the dead. Nope we dont believe any of that stuff that contradicts objective, external physical evidence.

Him:Interesting argument.

However, I would point out that there there IS a world that we can see, touch, smell, and if you're so inclined, taste regardless of whether it took (as some allege) seven 24-hour days or billions of years to create.

Mormons can't even produce a single piece of physical evidence to support Book of Mormon claims.

The rest of your example case studies, do indeed have to be taken on faith. However, they're coming out a book where there is enough physical and historical evidence to validate it as credible to some degree.

And we can evaluate the body of evidence to determine to what degree of credibility we're going to give it.

We can go to Jerusalem. We can't go to Zerahemla.

We can see and touch Roman, Babylon, even Egyptian weapons. We can't do so with any of the weapons of the Book of Mormon peoples.

The Bible doesn't anachronistically claim glass, compasses, submarines, steel, etc. in periods where such technologies were unknown. The Book of Mormon does.

So in the end one can evaluate the historicity of the Bible and it does well. When one does so with the Book of Mormon it's discredited. And the case is even worse with The Book of Abraham and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.

So for the person "reality checking" the Bible at least has SOME external evidence to correlate it against.

The person "reality checking" LdS Scripture has nothing. Furthermore, the external evidence discredits it. Yet Mormons continue to consider it "real" - even MORE real than external reality in some cases.

So while one can legitimately accept or reject the miracles of the Bible, the Bible itself has enough external evidence backing it so as to lessen the risk of psychosis to a large degree.

Mormons have nothing to mitigate the risk of psychosis. Nothing.

Me: we've gone down this road before and i don't think it would be productive to do it again. I do however wish to address a couple things.

"We can see and touch Roman, Babylon, even Egyptian weapons. We can't do so with any of the weapons of the Book of Mormon peoples."

archeologically speaking, they are two different environments. The middle east has a much drier climate better suited to preserving such things, not to mention most of the weapons found in egypt are from tombs, something the nephites/ lamanites didn't build.

"So while one can legitimately accept or reject the miracles of the Bible, the Bible itself has enough external evidence backing it so as to lessen the risk of psychosis to a large degree.

Mormons have nothing to mitigate the risk of psychosis. Nothing."

its really a moot point, it doesn't matter the bible talks about real places or not, it still would be considered psychosis by your definition to believe in those miracles. If you say the bible is the complete and inerrant word of G_d you must believe the miracles are true, which by you definition is psychosis. It really doesn't matter if the miracles happened in a real or fictional place it is still believing something that contradicts objective, external, physical evidence, or as you call it, psychosis.

Him: I would ask you to ponder this from British Mormon Studies Scholar Jim Whitefield:

"As long as people want the Mormon Church to be true, more than they are willing to face the possibility that it is not, they will not entertain evidence or reason.

Delusion becomes a choice."

-- Jim Whitefield

So you can see that I'm not the first to draw the line of reason from Mormon behavior and psychosis and I'm sure that I won't be the last.

Why is it that those outside of Mormonism see so clearly what those in Mormonism what Latter-day Saints can't (or won't)?

Edited June 12, 2011 by saintish

[Suzie]

Saintish, I don't know this guy "Mr IT" I'm not sure why is he referred to as anti-Mormon though? Because he is being critical about the Church? I don't agree with his definition of psychosis, having said if you just explain to him that the things you believe are based on FAITH rather than try to prove anything, he may leave it alone.

[Guest saintish]

I doubt it suzie, this guys been at it long before i started talking to him and will be long after. I enjoy a good debate and have learned a lot from it, thats the only reason i talk to this guy and i wouldn't recommend it to everyone.

[Maureen]

..."So while one can legitimately accept or reject the miracles of the Bible, the Bible itself has enough external evidence backing it so as to lessen the risk of psychosis to a large degree.

Mormons have nothing to mitigate the risk of psychosis. Nothing."

My take from this statement is that this alleged "Mormon scholar" is just saying that those who do believe in the Bible have a lesser risk of being delusional than those who believe in the BofM. In either case, he believes that those who have faith in things that are not based in reality, are at risk in one way or another in becoming delusional. I doubt he could provide studies that prove his statement. But you could ask him if he knows of any studies that do exist.

M.

[Backroads]

Her is the conversation in its entirety

Him:TRUE OR FALSE: Alma 32 forms and articulates the theological basis for 'The capstone of Mormonism': "I believe because I want to believe."

Me:"I believe because I want to believe." Isn't that a requirement to believe anything? I'd say most won't believe anything they don't want to believe.

Him: Thank you for your answer. But isn't believing in things that contradicts objective, external, physical evidence called, "Psychosis"?

Me: I suppose, if thats the label you want to put on it. Its not like we belive that the world was created in 7 days, there was a flood that covered the whole earth, that a man could turn a stick into a snake, hit a rock and make water come out, heal the sick, or raise the dead. Nope we dont believe any of that stuff that contradicts objective, external physical evidence.

Him:Interesting argument.

However, I would point out that there there IS a world that we can see, touch, smell, and if you're so inclined, taste regardless of whether it took (as some allege) seven 24-hour days or billions of years to create.

Mormons can't even produce a single piece of physical evidence to support Book of Mormon claims.

The rest of your example case studies, do indeed have to be taken on faith. However, they're coming out a book where there is enough physical and historical evidence to validate it as credible to some degree.

And we can evaluate the body of evidence to determine to what degree of credibility we're going to give it.

We can go to Jerusalem. We can't go to Zerahemla.

We can see and touch Roman, Babylon, even Egyptian weapons. We can't do so with any of the weapons of the Book of Mormon peoples.

The Bible doesn't anachronistically claim glass, compasses, submarines, steel, etc. in periods where such technologies were unknown. The Book of Mormon does.

So in the end one can evaluate the historicity of the Bible and it does well. When one does so with the Book of Mormon it's discredited. And the case is even worse with The Book of Abraham and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible.

So for the person "reality checking" the Bible at least has SOME external evidence to correlate it against.

The person "reality checking" LdS Scripture has nothing. Furthermore, the external evidence discredits it. Yet Mormons continue to consider it "real" - even MORE real than external reality in some cases.

So while one can legitimately accept or reject the miracles of the Bible, the Bible itself has enough external evidence backing it so as to lessen the risk of psychosis to a large degree.

Mormons have nothing to mitigate the risk of psychosis. Nothing.

Me: we've gone down this road before and i don't think it would be productive to do it again. I do however wish to address a couple things.

"We can see and touch Roman, Babylon, even Egyptian weapons. We can't do so with any of the weapons of the Book of Mormon peoples."

archeologically speaking, they are two different environments. The middle east has a much drier climate better suited to preserving such things, not to mention most of the weapons found in egypt are from tombs, something the nephites/ lamanites didn't build.

"So while one can legitimately accept or reject the miracles of the Bible, the Bible itself has enough external evidence backing it so as to lessen the risk of psychosis to a large degree.

Mormons have nothing to mitigate the risk of psychosis. Nothing."

its really a moot point, it doesn't matter the bible talks about real places or not, it still would be considered psychosis by your definition to believe in those miracles. If you say the bible is the complete and inerrant word of G_d you must believe the miracles are true, which by you definition is psychosis. It really doesn't matter if the miracles happened in a real or fictional place it is still believing something that contradicts objective, external, physical evidence, or as you call it, psychosis.

Him: I would ask you to ponder this from British Mormon Studies Scholar Jim Whitefield:

"As long as people want the Mormon Church to be true, more than they are willing to face the possibility that it is not, they will not entertain evidence or reason.

Delusion becomes a choice."

-- Jim Whitefield

So you can see that I'm not the first to draw the line of reason from Mormon behavior and psychosis and I'm sure that I won't be the last.

Why is it that those outside of Mormonism see so clearly what those in Mormonism what Latter-day Saints can't (or won't)?

The main problem I see in his argument is the need to define so many things from the BoM as terms and ideas he understands. He creates Mormonism to suit his needs, then fights it.

[Guest jollyroger]

He sounds like hard work and frankly a waste of time. Reading what he said was such hard work because it was such a load of rubbish.

Firstly, he's not a Mormon Scholar, do they even exist, is he the only one? His studies are mainly focused on disproving that it is true. What a sad way to earn a living and to live your life. I don't agree with other religious beliefs but I'm not going to make a career out of it! Get a life!

Second, all he wants to do is to argue and to smugly put you down and prove you're wrong. Nothing you say is going to make him change his mind. Don't get into an argument with him. It will go on and on and on. He either wants to learn or he doesn't.

Thirdly, a 'lack' of physical evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Before evidence of dinosaurs were found does that mean they never existed?

I'd turn the tables and get him to prove that he is a Mormon Scholar because if he was he'd know all about the service that we provide in disasters, and that we're often as disasters even before the Red Cross or even anyone else sometimes. Bombard him with the good that we do, that should end the argument and probably his career.