Debating with Protestants

*This was a response I posted some time ago on a facebook religious discussion group page. It was addressed to the Protestants in the group who thought that Mormonism was a cult. They refer to themselves as B.C.'s (Biblical Christians)*

I always find it interesting when the "I need facts" statement comes up in some religious discussions. I mean, both you and I believe in a book that has a talking snake and talking donkey, genetic manipulation of bovine offspring with certain patterns of cloth, four winged angels covered in eyes, divine plagues, etc─all of which are not based in reality but should, in my opinion, fall into the realm of belief and faith.

Anyway, we could get into a discussion about each other's 'facts.' In religious discussions (you will call this a 'hasty generalization,' but it is my experience of the last many years) I have come across, it seems that both sides have their 'facts' and their 'evidence.' One example that always comes to mind is the membership rankings of a certain religion, like Mormonism. One survey will show that Mormonism is in decline (performed by a Protestant organization) and another will say that Mormonism is on the rise (performed by a Mormon organization). Both were conducted 'scientifically;' and, of course, the Protestants don't believe the 'facts' put forth by the Mormon survey and the Mormons don't believe the 'facts' put forth by the Protestant survey.

Anyway, I have seen the 'facts' that you bring up against Mormonism, and even the 'facts' that you said were in physics that disprove the Mormon God and follow the Creation account in Genesis. They all seem highly subjective conclusions and interpretations (sometimes valid and sometimes not, in my opinion) draw from certain evidence. I see it all the time. Bob ***** has his 'facts' and you have your 'facts' and many in this facebook group (Mormon and Protestant) have their 'facts' with supporting evidence. This is one reason why I chose not to get into these conversations a lot of times (usually when you accuse me of dodging a question). When I don't agree with your 'facts,' I don't see the need or the benefit in bringing up my own 'facts,' which are just highly subjective conclusions and interpretations draw from the same evidence as you drew yours from.

You bring up stories of people being excommunicated and then ask me for details about the inner workings of excommunicating procedures over a church that has five million or so members, demanding evidence and facts that you would personally accept, which would never work because you already had a set conclusion in your mind before asking the question. No set of 'facts' brought up could change your mind. Whether that has to do with confirmation bias or your strong faith, I don't know. But, these same conversations have come up all the time in religious conversations. You bring up a lot of one sided reports of excommunications. This is a problem, and there is a further problem that the Mormon church's excommunication hearings are kept secret and confidential. I would like to hear both sides (and other, third party accounts, if possible), but it doesn't happen often enough. I have never been part of an excommunication hearing nor have I met someone who ever knew anyone personally who was excommunicated. This DOES NOT mean that is doesn't happen, but showing me a one sided account of an excommunication and saying the reason was that that person lost their testimony in Joseph Smith seems highly dubious to me. Seems there is a little bit more to the story (on the Mormon side and the excommunicated person's side).

Sometimes you ask rhetorical and obvious questions and then get onto me when I answer obviously. I applaud your desire for basing your beliefs on objective evidence, but I find religion to be more transcendental and spiritual. I admit there are many parts that have no basis in reality (as can be scientifically and logically measured, duplicated and replicated, measured, and scrutinized by third parties), but this doesn't diminish my faith these parts. I don't need to draw subjective assumptions from archaeological evidence for the existence of a Biblical city and try to link it with an ultimate blood sacrifice that brought about a new covenant. I believe in the Crucifixion and it remains in the faith category for me.

I have personal experiences that led me to Mormonism, which makes my belief in Mormonism very subjective. I have always admitted this, and I have never tried to push my belief as fact or anything close to objective. This is one reason why I don't give an alternate answer after I say I don't agree with your view. My view speculative, at best. I find many points of belief in religion to be interpretation (valid and invalid) and subjective. This DOESN'T MEAN that I don't believe in Absolutes. I just question when someone says that have found the absolute meaning in the Scriptures for a particular verse.

I read a lot of what people write and say on this page and it has always seemed to me (in my opinion) that the basis and foundation for the B.C. belief is just as subjective as the belief for Mormonism. You will disagree with this, of course; but, in my seeking reasons for why B.C.'s belief their view is the right one and the Absolute, I get a lot of populist, subjective conclusions and interpretations. This does not validate my belief in Mormonism in anyway. It has just been surprising that many of the B.C.'s who I have talked to about the basis for their beliefs in this group have either just told me why they think Mormonism is wrong or given some subjective reasons masked as 'objective facts.'

Take this as you want. I am dodging the question or using to many logical fallacies or I don't truly understand B.C.-ism, or whatever. It is okay.