Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

Post by Lemmie »

From the r/Mormon subreddit:

“Generally, you can avoid saying "well, this is a forest," if you spend all your time staring at bark through a microscope and telling yourself that the pattern in bark is similar to the pattern in an elephant's hide.” (self.Mormon)

— John Hamer (Community of Christ) when asked his thoughts on FairMormon apologetics

https://www.reddit.com/r/Mormon/comment ... this_is_a/

Stem
God
Posts: 1216
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2017 1:21 pm

Re: Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

Post by Stem »

I spotted that this morning too. Absolutely perfect, if you ask me.

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 11084
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

Post by honorentheos »

So much perfection.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa

User avatar
consiglieri
God
Posts: 6185
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:47 pm

Re: Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

Post by consiglieri »

Love it!
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6586
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

Post by Philo Sofee »

I can't help but wonder if the Mopologists will even comprehend its significance....
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22391
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

Post by moksha »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Wed Aug 12, 2020 5:52 pm
I can't help but wonder if the Mopologists will even comprehend its significance....
They would see it as an opportunity to hammer Hamer.
Last edited by moksha on Sun Aug 16, 2020 3:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1317
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm

Re: Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

Post by Physics Guy »

It would be interesting if some thoughtful Mormon would discuss this suggestion of Hamer's. Do Mormons think about whether their scholarly investigations of details might be distracting them from a bigger picture that really doesn't support their faith? Do they recognize that not-seeing-the-forest could in principle happen, that it's something for which they should be watching out because it's a real hazard?

Mormon apologists do often think about some related tree-versus-forest-like issues. For example they like to suggest that skeptics of Mormonism set up questions in biased ways that effectively rule out Mormon answers from the start. Since skeptics typically don't acknowledge that their questions are unfair like that, the Mormon apologists are implying that skeptical bias is a forest that skeptics aren't seeing when they focus on particular issues. At least I think that's what people like Hamblin or Christensen were doing when they tried to meet Jenkins's demand for concrete evidence with complaints about Jenkins's standards of evidence in general. If you can't get your king out of check you can argue that chess is just the wrong game. To me that's an effort to zoom the scale out from tree to forest.

Another forest-like Mormon approach is to argue that the cumulative weight of a lot circumstantial correspondences ought to count as substantial evidence even if no single piece of evidence is strong. That's about as close as possible to explicitly saying, "The trees are all iffy but the forest is impressive, so make sure you see the forest and not just any one tree." Similar to this is to seek warrant in the philosophy of science for treating seemingly grave counter-evidence as mere puzzles that can be resolved within an unchanged paradigm by ingenuity. Beautiful forests are bound to have a few ugly trees.

It seems as though appeals to forests over trees, or trees over forests, are often made by both believers and skeptics. If anyone thinks they have a great tree they want to hug that great tree; if the tree looks shaky they look around at the forest. But maybe what I'm missing from the Mormon side is more recognition of the possibility that the forest might not actually be beautiful. It seems as though Mormon forest/tree arguments always assume that the bigger picture is favorable to Mormonism, so that Mormons who are momentarily perturbed by any hostile fact can always safely withdraw into the big picture like the Russian armies avoiding Napoleon, knowing that winter is coming.

What if it's the other way round? What if the Mormons are only seeing an illusory forest and the real big picture is anything but favorable to Mormonism? Isn't that at least a possibility in principle? Why are Mormons sure that it's not so?

How do Mormons think that one should in general go about trying to tell whether a bigger picture to which one is appealing is illusory? Are there any rules or guidelines for how to do that kind of checking? Why should we expect those rules or guidelines to work?

I'd like to hear some Mormon answers to those questions. Because I'm interested in anybody's answers to those questions.

User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1317
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm

Re: Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

Post by Physics Guy »

To give my own answer, I think that a genuine big picture ought to be big and it ought to be a picture.

By being big I mean that the same big picture should fit well as a context around a lot of different specific cases. There might be a few ugly or iffy trees in the forest, but there should be a lot of fine healthy trees that fit into your picture of the forest as typical specimens.

They shouldn't be cherry trees, either—that is, you shouldn't have to rely on cherry-picked examples fetched from all over a wide range of circumstances in order to gather a decent-looking number of individual cases to which your big-picture set of assumptions applies well. Instead you should be surrounded with loads of cases that fit into your big picture as typical examples—enough cases that you can well afford to just let anybody else select them for you at random, without constantly having to argue away awkward cases. There may be apparent exceptions and puzzles but these will really be few compared to the typical cases, even when people who don't agree with you a priori pick the cases at random.

And then by saying that a big picture should be a picture I mean that it should be something reasonably simple and coherent, and not just a huge cobbled-together collection of arbitrary ad-hoc rules.

The big picture should be something that, if you show it to people first of all before getting into specific cases, then it dramatically reduces the amount of effort you have to spend describing each individual case. It does this first of all because it does accurately tell you a lot of things that are common to most of the individual cases, so you can say it once for all of them and then not have to repeat it for each of them. That's the "big" part. And then secondly the big picture saves effort in describing individual cases because the big picture is dramatically briefer than simply listing all the individual cases. It's a short executive summary of common themes, not a six-hunded-page book that is simply billed as a summary. That's the "picture" part.

So for instance the idea that Joseph Smith was a con man is a viable big picture for Mormonism by my standards. You can articulate the idea of Smith being a con man quite briefly, and then you find that it makes a ton of details about early Mormonism fall into place and make sense naturally. So many things that Smith said and did make immediate sense if you think of him as a fraud.

The idea that Smith was a genuine prophet does not work nearly so well as a big picture for Mormonism, it seems to me, because the concept of prophethood that is easy to communicate to most people keeps jarringly failing to fit lots of details about early Mormonism. If you want to maintain that Smith was nonetheless a true prophet, I think you have to keep revising what you mean by "prophet" in increasingly convoluted ways. You have to keep saying, "Well he wasn't that kind of prophet," and refining your definition of the unfamiliar kind of prophet that he was, until your notion of Smith as a prophet is nothing more than attaching the arbitrary label of "prophet" to the full account of every particular thing that Joseph Smith said or did. So Smith as prophet either fails to be big or it fails to be a picture.

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3568
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

Post by Dr Exiled »

How do you defend an unsavory character like Joseph Smith or Brigham Young? Isolate the problems one by one and claim you conquered them with a cheerleading section of mopologist Ph.D.'s who will say anything, like EmodE or LGT or disappearing DNA. Just having any answer will do for some. Being able to point to a 900 page book or a nonsense site like Fairmormon works some of the time. This is why Jeremy Runnells had to go. He made a big list of problems that was readable and understandable that showed the big picture of how false the literal Mormon claims are.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

User avatar
malkie
God
Posts: 2651
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:03 pm

Re: Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

Post by malkie »

Dr Exiled wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:21 pm
How do you defend an unsavory character like Joseph Smith or Brigham Young? Isolate the problems one by one and claim you conquered them with a cheerleading section of mopologist Ph.D.'s who will say anything, like EmodE or LGT or disappearing DNA. Just having any answer will do for some. Being able to point to a 900 page book or a nonsense site like Fairmormon works some of the time. This is why Jeremy Runnells had to go. He made a big list of problems that was readable and understandable that showed the big picture of how false the literal Mormon claims are.
It's interesting to look at the piechart that FAIRmormon uses to illustrate the big picture of their response to the CES Letter:

Image

56% of the letter, by their own analysis (not likely to be unbiased :smile: ) consists of material that they cannot say is error or falsehood.
They criticise Runnells for not producing a scholarly work, but even then they, the "professionals", are forced to concede that over half of what he says is true or at least arguable.

Seems to me that the "amateur" has them beaten.
NOMinal member

Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

Post by mentalgymnast »

Physics Guy wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 4:20 am
Beautiful forests are bound to have a few ugly trees.

It seems as though appeals to forests over trees, or trees over forests, are often made by both believers and skeptics. If anyone thinks they have a great tree they want to hug that great tree; if the tree looks shaky they look around at the forest. But maybe what I'm missing from the Mormon side is more recognition of the possibility that the forest might not actually be beautiful. It seems as though Mormon forest/tree arguments always assume that the bigger picture is favorable to Mormonism, so that Mormons who are momentarily perturbed by any hostile fact can always safely withdraw into the big picture like the Russian armies avoiding Napoleon, knowing that winter is coming.

What if it's the other way round? What if the Mormons are only seeing an illusory forest and the real big picture is anything but favorable to Mormonism? Isn't that at least a possibility in principle? Why are Mormons sure that it's not so?
I read both your posts. Interesting questions and thoughts. Count me as being someone who tries to look at the larger forest. The Macroscope of things. Knowing, as you said, that beautiful forests are bound to have some ugly trees. In my mind the LDS church fits the bill of being that beautiful forest. Answers to life’s basic questions: Where did I come from, why am I here, and where am I going after I die? The forest, in my opinion, has to be recognized as a beautiful forest from the least to the greatest among us. I think, however, that it is often the ‘greatest’ that often have the most difficult time seeing the forest through the trees.

I enjoy reading your posts. They're ‘thinkers’. 🙂

Regards,
MG

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6586
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

Post by Philo Sofee »

MG
In my mind the LDS church fits the bill of being that beautiful forest. Answers to life’s basic questions: Where did I come from, why am I here, and where am I going after I die? The forest, in my opinion, has to be recognized as a beautiful forest from the least to the greatest among us.
Vedanta Buddhism precisely matches this point for point...based on this, it has to be as truly true as Mormonism, yet the two could not possibly be more different.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

Post by mentalgymnast »

Philo Sofee wrote:
Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:00 pm
MG
In my mind the LDS church fits the bill of being that beautiful forest. Answers to life’s basic questions: Where did I come from, why am I here, and where am I going after I die? The forest, in my opinion, has to be recognized as a beautiful forest from the least to the greatest among us.
Vedanta Buddhism precisely matches this point for point...based on this, it has to be as truly true as Mormonism, yet the two could not possibly be more different.
How does this belief system answer these three questions?

Regards,
MG

Meadowchik
God
Posts: 1891
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:00 pm

Re: Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

Post by Meadowchik »

MG, interesting that we don't need the LDS answers to these questions to be a valiant person.

Meadowchik
God
Posts: 1891
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:00 pm

Re: Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

Post by Meadowchik »

Physics Guy wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 10:22 am
To give my own answer, I think that a genuine big picture ought to be big and it ought to be a picture.

By being big I mean that the same big picture should fit well as a context around a lot of different specific cases. There might be a few ugly or iffy trees in the forest, but there should be a lot of fine healthy trees that fit into your picture of the forest as typical specimens.

They shouldn't be cherry trees, either—that is, you shouldn't have to rely on cherry-picked examples fetched from all over a wide range of circumstances in order to gather a decent-looking number of individual cases to which your big-picture set of assumptions applies well. Instead you should be surrounded with loads of cases that fit into your big picture as typical examples—enough cases that you can well afford to just let anybody else select them for you at random, without constantly having to argue away awkward cases. There may be apparent exceptions and puzzles but these will really be few compared to the typical cases, even when people who don't agree with you a priori pick the cases at random.

And then by saying that a big picture should be a picture I mean that it should be something reasonably simple and coherent, and not just a huge cobbled-together collection of arbitrary ad-hoc rules.

The big picture should be something that, if you show it to people first of all before getting into specific cases, then it dramatically reduces the amount of effort you have to spend describing each individual case. It does this first of all because it does accurately tell you a lot of things that are common to most of the individual cases, so you can say it once for all of them and then not have to repeat it for each of them. That's the "big" part. And then secondly the big picture saves effort in describing individual cases because the big picture is dramatically briefer than simply listing all the individual cases. It's a short executive summary of common themes, not a six-hunded-page book that is simply billed as a summary. That's the "picture" part.

So for instance the idea that Joseph Smith was a con man is a viable big picture for Mormonism by my standards. You can articulate the idea of Smith being a con man quite briefly, and then you find that it makes a ton of details about early Mormonism fall into place and make sense naturally. So many things that Smith said and did make immediate sense if you think of him as a fraud.

The idea that Smith was a genuine prophet does not work nearly so well as a big picture for Mormonism, it seems to me, because the concept of prophethood that is easy to communicate to most people keeps jarringly failing to fit lots of details about early Mormonism. If you want to maintain that Smith was nonetheless a true prophet, I think you have to keep revising what you mean by "prophet" in increasingly convoluted ways. You have to keep saying, "Well he wasn't that kind of prophet," and refining your definition of the unfamiliar kind of prophet that he was, until your notion of Smith as a prophet is nothing more than attaching the arbitrary label of "prophet" to the full account of every particular thing that Joseph Smith said or did. So Smith as prophet either fails to be big or it fails to be a picture.
And there are lots of "big picture" ways one can look at Mormonism. At the other board I've been discussing my issues with the big picture of LDS epistemology and have personally found the conversation quite beneficial.

One of my replies which sums up my position:

"So I had just said that the Book of Mormon lacks self-awareness, clarifying that it makes many claims without providing sufficient evidence. I really like what you say here in the bolded, and I think it says even more clearly part of what I was trying to convey. The Book of Mormon presents opinions as fact.

Then, through Moroni’s challenge, it goes further and presents an opinion-forming process as a fact-checking process.

"I think they only fall apart when opinion alone is presented as fact." (Originally said by the other poster in the conversation.)

The Book of Mormon does this over and over again implicitly, and then formalizes this habit explicitly in Moroni’s challenge.

We can see this behavior repeated in the early church, adopted into Mormonism, and continuing to this day.

“I know the church is true” is a common example of this habit.

And this behavior is more than just an innocent diversion, it has real-world impact beyond personal belief.

Going back to what I said earlier,

I would say that the sermon on faith would be quite complete with a fuller, clearer appreciation of science and reason. On the other hand, Moroni's promise tends to a very lopsided reliance on feelings, which of course can be extremely faulty, much moreso than science and reasoned study of all kinds.

And so, although an affirmative physical evidence would not be enough (since it obviously cannot confirm claims of a supernatural nature), it is still integral to good belief. You may not need science to believe in an afterlife, but I am going to assume you use science to great benefit, including in your attempts to live a life that would be closer to the Giver of Eternal Life. Is that assumption wrong?

Adding to that, I would also contemplate the ramifications of institutionalised, dogmatised habit described above. What happens when opinions are formalized as fact? What happens when those opinions are finally untenable and must be abandoned?

I think it causes divisions and strife and delays, not to mention the harm itself of the bad information.

What happens spiritually, when one is taught to think of opinions as fact? How does that impact relationships? In my opinion, this is a danger that humanity has suffered under repeatedly, but we advance when we learn to manage our opinions better. Using the terms of therapy, it is like the difference between enmeshment and differentiation where differentiation is healthier, but in the realm of intellect, philosophy, scholarship, and spirituality."

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73 ... 1209987503

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

Post by mentalgymnast »

Meadowchik wrote:
Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:17 am
MG, interesting that we don't need the LDS answers to these questions to be a valiant person.
I agree. With the caveat that to be valiant within the LDS paradigm of belief you’d have to be a baptized/endowed and believing/practicing member of the church.

Regards,
MG

Lemmie
God
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm

Re: Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

Post by Lemmie »

Meadowchik wrote:
Sun Aug 16, 2020 6:25 am

And there are lots of "big picture" ways one can look at Mormonism. At the other board I've been discussing my issues with the big picture of LDS epistemology and have personally found the conversation quite beneficial.

One of my replies which sums up my position:

"So I had just said that the Book of Mormon lacks self-awareness, clarifying that it makes many claims without providing sufficient evidence. I really like what you say here in the bolded, and I think it says even more clearly part of what I was trying to convey. The Book of Mormon presents opinions as fact.

Then, through Moroni’s challenge, it goes further and presents an opinion-forming process as a fact-checking process.

"I think they only fall apart when opinion alone is presented as fact." (Originally said by the other poster in the conversation.)

The Book of Mormon does this over and over again implicitly, and then formalizes this habit explicitly in Moroni’s challenge.

We can see this behavior repeated in the early church, adopted into Mormonism, and continuing to this day.

“I know the church is true” is a common example of this habit.

And this behavior is more than just an innocent diversion, it has real-world impact beyond personal belief.

Going back to what I said earlier,

I would say that the sermon on faith would be quite complete with a fuller, clearer appreciation of science and reason. On the other hand, Moroni's promise tends to a very lopsided reliance on feelings, which of course can be extremely faulty, much moreso than science and reasoned study of all kinds.

And so, although an affirmative physical evidence would not be enough (since it obviously cannot confirm claims of a supernatural nature), it is still integral to good belief. You may not need science to believe in an afterlife, but I am going to assume you use science to great benefit, including in your attempts to live a life that would be closer to the Giver of Eternal Life. Is that assumption wrong?

Adding to that, I would also contemplate the ramifications of institutionalised, dogmatised habit described above. What happens when opinions are formalized as fact? What happens when those opinions are finally untenable and must be abandoned?

I think it causes divisions and strife and delays, not to mention the harm itself of the bad information.

What happens spiritually, when one is taught to think of opinions as fact? How does that impact relationships? In my opinion, this is a danger that humanity has suffered under repeatedly, but we advance when we learn to manage our opinions better. Using the terms of therapy, it is like the difference between enmeshment and differentiation where differentiation is healthier, but in the realm of intellect, philosophy, scholarship, and spirituality."

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73 ... 1209987503
Excellent assessment, Meadowchik. Very well said.

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9926
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

Post by Gadianton »

Mental Gymnast wrote:Where did I come from, why am I here, and where am I going after I die?
No, MG, Mormonism doesn't answer these questions except in the most superficial and not to mention, question-begging manner. Before you ask, "will you stop beating your mother-in-law?", you should first ask, "are you beating your mother-in-law"? Likewise, you should first ask, "Did I exist prior to birth?" before asking "where did I exist prior to birth?"? That God revealed the missionary program to use the fallacy of the complex question as a primary teaching tool is interesting. That you find fallacious thinking fascinating is totally predictable.

But suppose we all assume the basic premises, that we came from somewhere, that we're here for a reason, and that we're going somewhere. How good are Mormonisms answers?

No better than the answers given to Vikings. Why, what better answer to the purpose of life than what Vikings do best, drink and fight? And what better fate could we imagine than what awaits a Viking in Valhalla, than more drinking and fighting?

But these Mormon answers are dumb for a more important reason. Mormon answers are "turtle stacking" answers. Why does the earth not fall? Because it rides on the back of a turtle. Why doesn't that turtle fall? Because it rides on the back of yet, another turtle!

The answer, you are here on earth to be tried and tested answers "why" no better than explaining "you are to pick up a pan and some towels" answers "why" to a person wondering Walmart who suddenly suffers from temporary amnesia. Indeed, it could be thrilling to have an answer to basic facts about one's life for someone who experiences amnesia, but it's not that these facts are extraordinary outside of this unusual context. They aren't extraordinary to anybody who remembers, and when you get to the Celestial Kingdom, the 'answer' will be totally unsatisfying. You'll want to know how we -- in a collective galactic humanity -- got here, to this elaborate system of pre-existences, mortalities, and celestial kingdoms. Why are things that way rather than some other way?

When someone says, "why am I (we) here?" it's generally implied the question is universal -- why ultimately am I "here"? Why ultimately do I exist? Mormonism doesn't even attempt an answer to these questions, and Mormon thinkers who grapple with these in a Mormon context, run up into the same kind of philosophical problems that humans have grappled with for thousands of years, and not offering any unique insights at all to these problems, but having taken long, scenic routes to explore the problems because they are confused over the questions being asked.

Yes, people mean "ultimately" when they ask these questions, but many people are easily tricked into a bait-and-switch, where they're distracted by something that sounds profound but yet, familiar and self-promoting, and therefore, easy for the weak to accept as the final answer for something.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

Post by mentalgymnast »

Gadianton wrote:
Sun Aug 16, 2020 10:42 am
Mental Gymnast wrote:Where did I come from, why am I here, and where am I going after I die?
No, MG, Mormonism doesn't answer these questions except in the most superficial and not to mention, question-begging manner. Before you ask, "will you stop beating your mother-in-law?", you should first ask, "are you beating your mother-in-law"? Likewise, you should first ask, "Did I exist prior to birth?" before asking "where did I exist prior to birth?"? That God revealed the missionary program to use the fallacy of the complex question as a primary teaching tool is interesting. That you find fallacious thinking fascinating is totally predictable.

But suppose we all assume the basic premises, that we came from somewhere, that we're here for a reason, and that we're going somewhere. How good are Mormonisms answers?

No better than the answers given to Vikings. Why, what better answer to the purpose of life than what Vikings do best, drink and fight? And what better fate could we imagine than what awaits a Viking in Valhalla, than more drinking and fighting?

But these Mormon answers are dumb for a more important reason. Mormon answers are "turtle stacking" answers. Why does the earth not fall? Because it rides on the back of a turtle. Why doesn't that turtle fall? Because it rides on the back of yet, another turtle!

The answer, you are here on earth to be tried and tested answers "why" no better than explaining "you are to pick up a pan and some towels" answers "why" to a person wondering Walmart who suddenly suffers from temporary amnesia. Indeed, it could be thrilling to have an answer to basic facts about one's life for someone who experiences amnesia, but it's not that these facts are extraordinary outside of this unusual context. They aren't extraordinary to anybody who remembers, and when you get to the Celestial Kingdom, the 'answer' will be totally unsatisfying. You'll want to know how we -- in a collective galactic humanity -- got here, to this elaborate system of pre-existences, mortalities, and celestial kingdoms. Why are things that way rather than some other way?

When someone says, "why am I (we) here?" it's generally implied the question is universal -- why ultimately am I "here"? Why ultimately do I exist? Mormonism doesn't even attempt an answer to these questions, and Mormon thinkers who grapple with these in a Mormon context, run up into the same kind of philosophical problems that humans have grappled with for thousands of years, and not offering any unique insights at all to these problems, but having taken long, scenic routes to explore the problems because they are confused over the questions being asked.

Yes, people mean "ultimately" when they ask these questions, but many people are easily tricked into a bait-and-switch, where they're distracted by something that sounds profound but yet, familiar and self-promoting, and therefore, easy for the weak to accept as the final answer for something.
This is a circuitous way of saying that you don’t have any answers and you don’t expect that anyone really does. Ever the critic.

I would be the first one to admit that in LDS theology we speak mainly in generalities rather than getting too awfully specific. But it’s the generalities that, at least in my mind, actually makes sense. If there is a God it makes sense that we have coexisted and some form or fashion along with Him before we came to this earth. It makes sense that we have purpose pre-ordained by God once we’re here on the earth. It makes sense that this purpose/path, given to us by God, would then go with us as we pass beyond the veil.

But there I go bringing a creator God into the picture again. Because in my mind, that makes sense. That’s where we cross paths with each other.

Turtles and Vikings, yeah...you could go with that.

Regards,
MG

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9926
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

Post by Gadianton »

No, my response isn't merely a way of "saying I don't have answers." No, it's not a matter of "general and specific". If anything, you understand the words "general" and "specific" backwards: finding ultimate answers would be more like learning our purpose generally, while "awfully specific" answers are answers such as yours, where mortal life is explained by mundane facts we currently don't know about, such as the war in heaven. This is no different, as I explained, then winding up at Walmart with amnesia, and not knowing why you are there.

No, it doesn't innately "make sense" that we existed with God in some fashion before earth. It makes sense to you only because that's what you grew up believing. There is nothing about understanding a "creator God" that intuitively links us to eternally pre-existing with God. In fact, it's the exact opposite: If the primary function of God is found in the predicate of "creator", then nothing could make less sense than asserting we are co-eternal with God. What would make sense is that God, er, created us.

Wow, you sure have a knack at being 100% wrong about things, don't you?
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.

LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.

mentalgymnast
God
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm

Re: Hamer’s hilarious assessment of FairMormon apologetics

Post by mentalgymnast »

Gadianton wrote:
Sun Aug 16, 2020 2:40 pm
No, my response isn't merely a way of "saying I don't have answers." No, it's not a matter of "general and specific". If anything, you understand the words "general" and "specific" backwards: finding ultimate answers would be more like learning our purpose generally, while "awfully specific" answers are answers such as yours, where mortal life is explained by mundane facts we currently don't know about, such as the war in heaven. This is no different, as I explained, then winding up at Walmart with amnesia, and not knowing why you are there.

No, it doesn't innately "make sense" that we existed with God in some fashion before earth. It makes sense to you only because that's what you grew up believing. There is nothing about understanding a "creator God" that intuitively links us to eternally pre-existing with God. In fact, it's the exact opposite: If the primary function of God is found in the predicate of "creator", then nothing could make less sense than asserting we are co-eternal with God. What would make sense is that God, er, created us.
Wow, you sure have a knack at being 100% wrong about things, don't you?
If you’re right. Big if.

If not, we’re on a level playing field. I have as much chance of being right as the next guy. And I have scriptures and the prophets on my side.

You seem to think you’re a power player as you run up and down the field.

What if you’re 100% wrong?

By the way, I can see you right at home here:

Image


Regards,
MG

Post Reply