Do facts matter?

[shadow]

Maybe the real divide isn’t BlueAmerica v Red America, but between Google America & non-Google America

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/829398834312859648

Maybe the real divide isn't Anti-Mormon v Mormon, but between Google Mormon & non-Google Mormon.

[Stig]

Maybe the real divide isn’t BlueAmerica v Red America, but between Google America & non-Google America

https://twitter.com/davidfrum/status/829398834312859648

Maybe the real divide isn't Anti-Mormon v Mormon, but between Google Mormon & non-Google Mormon.

Well, long ago, Dr. Shades (from the mormondiscussions.com board) coined the comparison between a "Chapel Mormon" (only knows what's taught in correlated material) and an "Internet Mormon" (knows more of the "warts and all" history and has a more nuanced version of living the religion's tenets). I find the dichotomy a little restrictive and stark, but the idea is understandable.

[Korihor]

Do you want facts to matter?

If yes, then facts matter.
If no, then facts don't matter.

[Rob4Hope]

Facts don't matter. Follow the money....

[wtfluff]

It depends on the "facts"...

Fact Facts?

Or Alternative Facts?

[Rob4Hope]

Common,...fact is facts....

Wait...where am I?

[Red Ryder]

Facts aren't always black or white. Sometimes facts can be taken out of context and make an organization look bad to the public while the insiders know the true meaning of the facts.

It's a fact of life. Like the fact that Kim Fields was the first white actress to play the role of a black child in a TV sitcom.

[Korihor]

Which facts would you like to be factual?

[Red Ryder]

Which facts would you like to be factual?

Are you suggesting Tootie wasn't black?

[Corsair]

David Frum's underlying thesis is summarized in this article published November 2, 2016: The Conservative Case for Voting for Clinton. He is a conservative that felt that Hillary Clinton was a better choice for President than Donald Trump. David Frum's Twitter comment is trying to make sense of the election results and he has come up with "Google America & non-Google America" which I think is at least as much a false dichotomy as "Red vs. Blue". It is not hard to find both Clinton and Trump voters who absolutely felt that they sufficiently Googled their preferred candidate whether or not they were happy about their outcome. There are today still plenty of people that are happy they voted for Trump.

The LDS angle is filled with similarly false dichotomies. I do like the generalization of Dr. Shades' "Chapel Mormon vs. Internet Mormon". However, all of the apologists at FairMormon are confident that their extensive research (internet and otherwise) leads to a solid conclusion of the divine truth of Mormonism. Apologists don't easily accept "Chapel Mormon vs. Internet Mormon". And I do not know how you would classify an apostle in this divide.

Which facts would you like to be factual?

Facts aren't always black or white. Sometimes facts can be taken out of context and make an organization look bad to the public while the insiders know the true meaning of the facts.

This is closer to the crux of the matter. Humans are really good at justifying their desires with carefully chosen facts. Deliberately confronting yourself with uncomfortable facts is a much better way to make decisions. This is a practice which I don't think happens among apostles very often.

[Korihor]

Which facts would you like to be factual?

Are you suggesting Tootie wasn't black?

Does she feel black?

[20/20hind]

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence".

John Adams


Yes they matter. But only when your willing to honestly look at the facts and make an educated choice.

Mormons have grown up and been taught non google facts. Many of them never have read or heard about the essays.

[wtfluff]

I can't believe the penguin hasn't said:

Some facts are not very useful.

[well wandered]

However, all of the apologists at FairMormon are confident that their extensive research (internet and otherwise) leads to a solid conclusion of the divine truth of Mormonism. Apologists don't easily accept "Chapel Mormon vs. Internet Mormon".

I feel like the apologists main job is to be the filter that learns challenging facts in place of the members of the Church, and spin them around incredulously to try to shield their audience from drawing their own conclusions. To cast doubt on what casts doubt on the Church.

In a way, all they're really proving, is you can't really 'know' both the challenging issues are true AND the Church is "true" in a literal, absolute sense.

The hard part of the work they do is to discredit facts or data that don't indicate non-faith-promoting conclusions. So to them your choice is to either trust one or the other, unfortunately.

[Newme]

Not all facts are created equal, IMO.
To me, church his-story is kind of like US history - that was then, this is now.
The church-related facts that matter more to me are those that by people being unaware of them, it actually HURTs them and others.
IE:
Financial facts
Logical fallacy facts (aka thinking distortions that are regularly preached and promote mental illness)

[Hagoth]

One good thing Donald Trump has given me is a name for official church history: FAKE NEWS. Sad.

[Phil Lurkerman]

I've thought about this idea quite a bit over the past 15 years. My conclusion is that the very idea of faith requires at least some willingness to suspend or distort other objective evidence. Sometimes faith is the "evidence of things not seen" (which can be a positive thing) but it is often used as hard evidence against things that are seen.

So, to answer the question directly: No, objective facts and evidence do not matter to those who have decided to believe otherwise.

[Hagoth]

The strength of an organization like the LDS church lies precisely in it's power to invent artificial realities and present them as "facts" of a different quality than the facts of nature, along the lines of the "alternative facts" that have become so popular in Washington DC these days. People like us are misguided in expecting such an organization to put a greater value on truth than on their own imaginings. It's not about TRUTH, it's about "truth," and the maintenance of a narrative that binds people in a common cause. It's power lies in the fact that it is not empirically factual. The party line needs to be unbelievable to create an us-and-them mentality that makes the us side of the equation special because they hold a unique view of reality. The them side is made up of people who settle for ordinary facts that don't require magic to make sense. If the church were in the business of telling the truth it would collapse.

Our leaders are correct in their derision of reason and logic, as far as what makes their system work. If they gave into the temptation to allow reason to rule the day their gilded rug would be pulled out faster they could say jack mormon.

[fh451]

Amen, Hagoth!

To this point, I was listening to the Mormon Discussion's "Radio Free Mormon" podcast this morning about whether the apostles have seen Jesus (SPOILER ALERT: they haven't) and how they go about dealing with the question when asked. Dallin Oaks reveals himself as a master lawyer, obfuscator, and wordsmith when he re-defines that "special witness of Christ" means they are "special" in their "witnessing of Christ" rather than there is anything special about the witness itself. They have a "sure knowledge" of Christ, whatever that means. It is a re-definition of reality, and once again it's the members fault for doing it wrong.

The FACTS, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE FACTS! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83MQhjfYW0o

fh451

[wtfluff]

Sometimes faith is the "evidence of things not seen" (which can be a positive thing) but it is often used as hard evidence against things that are seen.

This is brilliant...

Facts and reality really don't matter, if you have enough "faith".