Mormon REVERENCE FOR JOSEPH SMITH

[_Blixa]

In the years I attended, the following were key figures of veneration in order of reverence:

1) Joseph Smith
2) Current Prophet
4) God the Eternal Father
4) The Pioneers
5) Brigham Young
6) Assortment of characters from the Book of Mormon
7) Miscellany of Old Testament "prophets"
8) Baby Jesus
9) Jesus Christ
10) Employee of the Month (various GA's, local leaders, etc.)

[_moksha]

In the years I attended, the following were key figures of veneration in order of reverence:

1) Joseph Smith
2) Current Prophet
4) God the Eternal Father
4) The Pioneers
5) Brigham Young
6) Assortment of characters from the Book of Mormon
7) Miscellany of Old Testament "prophets"
8) Baby Jesus
9) Jesus Christ
10) Employee of the Month (various GA's, local leaders, etc.)

I wish there was not a whole lot of truth to this, but.... however, I would say that Jesus Christ should be elevated to at least number six on topics spoken about. That is an issue apart from reverence for Joseph Smith however. I have wished for a long time that we could be more Christ centered in our Sacrament meetings.

[_JAK]

No, wrong again.

A man told you that God said so.

No, God told me that man was telling me what God said so.

You are indeed a joke, Nehor. You pontificate. No evidence for God has been established. Absent that, you make up anything that pleases your emotions. Not only did God tell you nothing, you are a victim of Mormon indoctrination. You have no idea the extent to which you are under Mormon control.

There appears to be no hope for you. Your brain has been cooked. You’re a pathetic anti-intellectual in your God claims.

JAK

[_The Nehor]

No, wrong again.

A man told you that God said so.

No, God told me that man was telling me what God said so.

You are indeed a joke, Nehor. You pontificate. No evidence for God has been established. Absent that, you make up anything that pleases your emotions. Not only did God tell you nothing, you are a victim of Mormon indoctrination. You have no idea the extent to which you are under Mormon control.

There appears to be no hope for you. Your brain has been cooked. You’re a pathetic anti-intellectual in your God claims.

JAK

Okay JAK. I think I would know better than you whether I talk to God.

[_JAK]

No, wrong again.

A man told you that God said so.

No, God told me that man was telling me what God said so.

You are indeed a joke, Nehor. You pontificate. No evidence for God has been established. Absent that, you make up anything that pleases your emotions. Not only did God tell you nothing, you are a victim of Mormon indoctrination. You have no idea the extent to which you are under Mormon control.

There appears to be no hope for you. Your brain has been cooked. You’re a pathetic anti-intellectual in your God claims.

JAK

Okay JAK. I think I would know better than you whether I talk to God.

Well, let’s see what you can offer in the way of evidence -- evidence open to skeptical review. Your say so hardly constitutes anything in the way of that which can be skeptically reviewed.

In fact, it is the opposite. It’s more truth by assertion.

I have found that people such as you generally don’t understand that three-word phrase. You have never addressed it nor have others.

Simply stated it means that you make a declaration as if it were an established fact. It’s an assertion. Particularly religious notions such as I talk to God and God talks to me. Since it’s your claim and since no one else actually hears what you claim to hear, you have nothing to present for your claims.

Religions use truth by assertion. You use it each time you make some God claim.

But, whether you're a “puppet” as harmony said of “Tommy” or a brain-washed child, the difference lacks much distinction -- “The Nehor.”

Does your God speak in English? Does your God have tonal inflection? Does your God have a bass voice?

Let's have some detail, Nehor. Otherwise, you're a fraud. And even if you make up a story here, you have no evidence for your claims. Your word is not sufficient.

JAK

[_Blixa]

In the years I attended, the following were key figures of veneration in order of reverence:

1) Joseph Smith
2) Current Prophet
4) God the Eternal Father
4) The Pioneers
5) Brigham Young
6) Assortment of characters from the Book of Mormon
7) Miscellany of Old Testament "prophets"
8) Baby Jesus
9) Jesus Christ
10) Employee of the Month (various GA's, local leaders, etc.)

I wish there was not a whole lot of truth to this, but.... however, I would say that Jesus Christ should be elevated to at least number six on topics spoken about. That is an issue apart from reverence for Joseph Smith however. I have wished for a long time that we could be more Christ centered in our Sacrament meetings.

Although I was trying to be a bit funny with that list, Moksha, I was also being serious. Looking back over it now, maybe I should put JC/Baby Jesus above the Old Testament figures, but I think I'd still rank Baby Jesus above adult Jesus because he pretty much had the xmas season devoted to him and adult Christ got spread out over the rest of the year.

And of course growing up in Utah could account for a higher ranking of The Pioneers and Brigham Young than might occur elsewhere (though, I've heard tell Pioneer Worship is imported to other LDS markets, too).

In fact, the only time I really remember Jesus Christ getting much play was when I was interviewed by the Bishop at age eight for baptism. I remember because it surprised me that he was taling pretty much only about Jesus and not the Book of Mormon or Joseph Smith. Those topics I was used to from Primary, and could answer "correctly" about, but Jesus was another matter. I ended up talking for a longer time to him than he probably anticipated, too, because I had a lot of questions about Jesus, or at least about how the Bishop described him.

Anyway that's the only time I remember a whole lot of time being spent on Jesus himself.

[_Seven]

Although I was trying to be a bit funny with that list, Moksha, I was also being serious. Looking back over it now, maybe I should put JC/Baby Jesus above the Old Testament figures, but I think I'd still rank Baby Jesus above adult Jesus because he pretty much had the xmas season devoted to him and adult Christ got spread out over the rest of the year.

Unless they are celebrating an anniversary of Joseph Smith's birth......

[_Blixa]

But they didn't do that back in my day. Joseph Smith's birthday was hardly mentioned: it was all about the First Vision, the Translatoin of the Book of Mormon, Martyrdom, etc.

I have read of the more recent attention given to his December birthday, so I know what you're refering to.

[_The Nehor]

No, wrong again.

A man told you that God said so.

No, God told me that man was telling me what God said so.

You are indeed a joke, Nehor. You pontificate. No evidence for God has been established. Absent that, you make up anything that pleases your emotions. Not only did God tell you nothing, you are a victim of Mormon indoctrination. You have no idea the extent to which you are under Mormon control.

There appears to be no hope for you. Your brain has been cooked. You’re a pathetic anti-intellectual in your God claims.

JAK

Okay JAK. I think I would know better than you whether I talk to God.

Well, let’s see what you can offer in the way of evidence -- evidence open to skeptical review. Your say so hardly constitutes anything in the way of that which can be skeptically reviewed.

In fact, it is the opposite. It’s more truth by assertion.

I have found that people such as you generally don’t understand that three-word phrase. You have never addressed it nor have others.

Simply stated it means that you make a declaration as if it were an established fact. It’s an assertion. Particularly religious notions such as I talk to God and God talks to me. Since it’s your claim and since no one else actually hears what you claim to hear, you have nothing to present for your claims.

Religions use truth by assertion. You use it each time you make some God claim.

But, whether you're a “puppet” as harmony said of “Tommy” or a brain-washed child, the difference lacks much distinction -- “The Nehor.”

Does your God speak in English? Does your God have tonal inflection? Does your God have a bass voice?

Let's have some detail, Nehor. Otherwise, you're a fraud. And even if you make up a story here, you have no evidence for your claims. Your word is not sufficient.

JAK

Why give you detail? You already said you won't believe it.

Truth by Assertion. Seems to be your buzz-phrase. I contend that I am not asserting it and when I try to present anything you demand that it be subject to skeptical review. What is this skeptical review you want? What evidence do you want? A reproducible miracle? God's presence (which would kill you)?

Most important things in life can't be skeptically reviewed. I assume that sometime you've asserted that you love someone. Prove it. Perhaps you've asserted that something makes you happy. Prove it. With evidence for skeptical review please. If you've felt neither of these things than I feel sorry for you.

Your fallacy is that science will teach you anything at all about God. It will not.....ever. Science is concerned with what matter does in certain states. God is outside the equation. If he is to be detected it is by other means.

But if that doesn't help I will give you an experiment you can do to prove the existence of God to you skeptically and disinterestedly. Kill yourself using the method of your choice. You will find an afterlife and eventually God. Tell me how it goes.

[_Jersey Girl]

JAK

I have found that people such as you generally don’t understand that three-word phrase. You have never addressed it nor have others.

In my own words...

It means that if I state a thing without supplying proof, I think that my stating it makes it true.

As in "God talks to me"

In which case, I have asserted God without supplying proof of God. I assume God. I even assume that you assume God. I cannot in all intellectual honesty claim that God talks to me, if I haven't first established God. The claim that God talks to me is contingent on my first proving the existence of God. The Burden of Proof is on me to prove the existence of God by providing empirical evidence for my positive claim. If I am able to do so, I still have to prove that God talks to me. Otherwise I am using...

truth by assertion

(No applause please)

Jersey Girl
:-)