We should not begrudge faithful Mormon their desire to preserve faith by focusing on the good bits

Reasons to disagree

1. Some people need faith

Reasons to disagree

1. Following the spirit is problematic, because if all your family, and your upbringing tells you the Church is true, then of course when you doubt you are going to feel uncomfortable. The church tells you this uncomfortable feeling is the spirit leaving you, and so you get stuck never knowing the truth.

We should avoid conflating "the good" with "the true"

Reasons to agree

1. Whatever is good is true.


2. It is better to be good than right.

Reasons to disagree

1. Whatever is good, is not necessarily true.


2. Being right is good.


3. We can't face the real problems unless we live in reality.

It is moral not to hold on to implausible claims when they support a problematical construal of God

Reasons to agree

1. I'm not sure I get this right, but it sounded like he was saying that believing in "the God of 3 Nephi 9, D&C 132, Abraham 1" is immoral. Or at least not believing in them is Moral.


2. If God exists, perhaps He will forgive our stitching together models of goodness from “this-worldly” expressions untethered to extraordinary Mormon claims.


3. This stance seems to avoid conflating "the good" with "the true" while leaving one open to both.

Reasons to disagree

1. Just because a construct of God is problematic, does not make it immoral.


2. This is all just a mater of semantics. Sure, from a worldly standpoint it is moral to believe whatever you want. This does not mean it is true. Both believing and not believing can be moral. I'm not sure Bushman's point of view was accurately represented, but I assume Bushman feels that Josoph Smith was a Moral guy, and that Mormonism helps make Bushman a better guy. Much like what Peter said to Jesus, when he asked if Peter was also going to leave. Peter said, but where would we go for the worlds of Eternal life. I assume that is what Bushman meant, that he is still getting something out of Mormonism, and that he sticks with it because he thinks it makes him a more moral person.

Leaving the Church can be a moral choice.

Reasons to agree:

1. It is moral not to hold on to implausible claims when they support a problematical construal of God

Saying that God would test our faith with designed-implausibility, makes God into a pious-fraud.

Reasons to agree

1. A fraud is someone who says they are something that they are not. God never said he wouldn't hide himself so intellectuals couldn't find him. He does talk about stumbling blocks. I don't think that God tests our faith with designed implausibility, but if he did I wouldn't call him a fraud. I can see why he would do it. He would want nice people who pray, and stuff to make it into heaven, not people that construct logical towers of Babel.

Book of Mormon anachronistic do not prove the Book of Mormon is false.

Reasons to agree:

1. Someone on the other side perhaps Nephi in a ‘postmortem’ state provided the anachronistic Isaiah material.” (I'm not sure I follow this line of thought. It it assuming that this person provided a more accurate version of Isiah? I'm not sure how getting help from an Angel would explain problems with Isaiah in 2nd Nephi any differently than getting the translation from the Urim and Thummim.

2. Jesus could have intentionally communicated the Isaiah anachronisms to Mormon and Moroni.

Jesus could have intentionally communicated the Isaiah anachronisms to Mormon and Moroni

Reasons to agree

1. Our ways are not God's ways.


2. God did lots of things in the Old Testament, and some in the New Testament, that don't sound ethical to us. But God may not have to live by our definition of ethical.


3. God could be testing us. "Smart" people won't believe, but people that keep praying, and reading their scriptures will believe, just as God intended.

Reasons to disagree

1. God would not test our faith with designed-implausibility.

God would not test our faith with designed-implausibility. -2

Reasons to agree: 3

1. God cannot be said to purposely deceive us, and also be a god of truth. 


2. Saying that God purposely made his Church hard for intellectuals to accept disrespects God


3. The normal course of life provide enough stumbling blocks, without designed-implausibility.  What would such a construct of God be salvaging?

Reasons to disagree: -5

1. God never explains himself. He told Abraham to kill his son. Abraham could have researched if that commandment jived with the other commandments, but we are supposed to believe that it was counted to Abraham for righteousness.


2. Elijah (?) didn't explain himself when he told that guy to bath in that river (?) to fix his leprosy


3. We are told that Jesus purposely made the "eat of my flesh" and "drink of my blood" commandment confusing, as a test to weed out his followers.


4. God's ways are not our ways. 


5. God doesn't have to follow our rules. 

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 3

# of reasons to disagree: -5

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: -2

Related arguments:

1. Saying there are Old Testament scriptures that support something is meaningless, because so many Old Scriptures contradict each other.


2. Saying there are Old Testament scriptures that support something is meaningless, because so many Old Scriptures contradict the New Testament.


3. Saying there are Old Testament scriptures that support something is meaningless, because so many Old Scriptures can be used to do terrible things.