How many time have any of you received this response? Here's the set up:
Me: Joe was convicted of glass looking, lied about polygamy, deceived church members financially, etc... (could be any number of historical items)
any mormon: Well, that's your opinion. We can never REALLY KNOW what happened because we weren't there.
My problem with this is that you'd never hear them argue about Washington being the first president, when the Monroe Doctrine was proclaimed, or any number of other historical events of that time.
Then in the next breath, they can tell you that they KNOW everything about heaven. The way it's set up, how we'll look, what we'll wear, all the handshakes you need to get there, and so on.
How can you argue reasonably with someone who so easily dismisses evidence? I often imagine a situation were a mormon is on trial for a crime. They have in their favor DNA evidence, signed witness statements placing them far from the crime scene at the time, possibly even a video showing that they weren't there. The prosecution then takes over and says to the judge and jury, "Well, there is no way to REALLY KNOW what happened since we weren't there. But I really FEEL like the defendant committed this crime...can't you feel it too?" I can't imagine that scenario occurring without the mormon telling everyone that feelings don't matter when they have clearly shown that they weren't at the crime scene.
So when does my evidence trump their feelings? Ever?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/08/2011 09:52AM by omen.
I think that the answer is that the feelings of the H.G. (seratonin release in the brain) are always going to be the feeling that Mormons use to twist reality. They are not doing it at a level of thinking where they are using rational and logical thinking......they want to believe in something. Mormonism has just come along and given them a way to be believers in something.
They live half-in and half-out of a spiritualistic world in their mind and that is pretty dam close to being delusional.
I think that Mormonism is about the same as people who go to seances to get advice for life from psychics and spiritualists. Both are a tawdry and lucrative bussines that will not admit their deception in using tricks to exploit believers.
The real self-deception comes when they say that even the things that joe printed in his newspaper, in his journals, in his doctrine, and in his speeches recorded by his personal scribe......just maybe they don't exactly mean what he wrote.....because we wern't there.
So we are to believe that newspaper articles and books and facsimiles and even writing down everything during the translation process can all be dismissed by the scribes making one mistake after another?
Perhaps of those willing to be mormons there were so few who could read or write that the church had to rely on the only scribe in the whole church?
And then to make matters worse, these scribes kept what Joseph had dictated a secret until he was out of town and then had them quickly printed before he had time and money to review them?
I agree we can't know everything because we were not there, but we can know that because people believed and were reliable witnesses, and by direct commandment, they did their best to make accurate records which were reviewed by Joseph Smith before publication.
As for the defense, they can't really know either because they were also not there, and yet they will fight to the death to defend the rewritten and polished versions of those records.
If we can't really know, how can they base their whole life - their eternal salvation - their eternal family on what Mormons claim. They just admitted they really can't know what happened. That is a terrible risk to take - to throw away your whole life, your reputation outside the church, your money, your retirement, your mental health on a church when you, yourself admit you can't know if it's true.
Tell them that - that should mess with their heads a bit. Especially if you say, "I know because of how it makes me feel inside" isn't a defense that the church is true.
If the scribes made so many mistakes, how can you trust anything the church said or anything the church teaches? Maybe they wrote down the first vision wrong. Maybe God said "Go ahead - join any church. Whatever makes you happy, Joseph." Or maybe Joseph said "Hey, gays should be allowed to marry" but some prejudiced scribe left that out.
You can't pick out the things you like and claim the scribes and witnesses got those things right and turn around and pick out the things you don't like and say the scribes got those things wrong. Talk about the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.
....they all cherry pick their scriptures because they know there's loony stuff in there. And then they berate those who point it out as "hating" them.
You can't do that in Mormonism. They expect you to be obedient in all things...until it turns out you can use their own teachings against them. Those teachings you are supposed to ignore. Mormonism also wants to be thought of as God's One True Religion, requiring a sacrifice commiserate with that claim. Then, when shown there are faults in their religion, they are quick to claim "But all religions have their bad history...look at the crusades" or "All religions have leadership that goes bad...look at the Catholic priest scandal." You are supposed to give them credit for being better than everyone else but when they screw up, they want it overlooked because they are just like any other church. That really bugs me.
Very few things in life are going to be self witnessed. So we rely on the evidence available...what other people saw, what they wrote down, court records, journals, letters, histories. Taken as a whole a great many things can be known with a high degree of certainty. Some things can be "believed" based on a slight tilt of evidence one way or another. Like a belief in a man who actually may have lived, like Jesus. Now the alleged things he did, there is no evidence. To accept those things you must do it on faith/belief, without evidence to prove it.
This statement is a double edged sword that can be used for and against anything that a TBM says or any religous person.
Did Christ rise from the dead? "Well, we weren't there so we really can't know"
Did Nephi build a boat? "Well, we weren't there so we really can't know"
Did moses part the red sea? "Well, we weren't there so we really can't know"
Did Joe Smith see and Talk With God? "Well, we weren't there so we really can't know"
just throw it back in their face. Just because it was written in some book or on some plates or on some animal hide doesn't make it real. "Well, we weren't there so we really can't know"
I'm interested in what typical TBMs say or how they respond when you turn it right back at them I haven't actually used the "we weren't there so we really can't know" on them.
You wrote>How can you argue reasonably with someone who so easily dismisses evidence? I often imagine a situation were a mormon is on trial for a crime. They have in their favor DNA evidence, signed witness statements placing them far from the crime scene at the time, possibly even a video showing that they weren't there. The prosecution then takes over and says to the judge and jury, "Well, there is no way to REALLY KNOW what happened since we weren't there. But I really FEEL like the defendant committed this crime...can't you feel it too?" I can't imagine that scenario occurring without the mormon telling everyone that feelings don't matter when they have clearly shown that they weren't at the crime scene.
So when does my evidence trump their feelings? Ever?<
You can not argue reasonably with an unreasonable person. To argue reasonably you must both agree on a point and go from there.
No your evidence will never trump their feelings as long as their feelings is their witness to the truth.
Please do not fret over their lack of be able to reason in an intelligent way. Be grateful that you are able to see reason and try to move on.