Three possibilities for the head in hat.

[_Pokatator]

Perhaps, Joseph drew the curtain shut and used the hat like many a pervert did in darkened theaters. That could be the source of his "inspiration".

[_mentalgymnast]

Why not use it?

Because tales of the fantastic are for suckers, such as yourself.

Why is it so fantastic that God would have Joseph use something he was familiar with?

by the way, sweeping generalizations are a type of logical fallacy. Sweeping generalizations neglect the fact that nearly every generalization has one exception or more. How can you know that there are not exceptions to your pronouncement?

Are you a sucker for making sweeping generalizations without proper or at least adequate understanding(s)?

Regards,
MG

[_Chap]

Why not use it?

Because tales of the fantastic are for suckers, such as yourself.

Why is it so fantastic that God would have Joseph use something he was familiar with?

by the way, sweeping generalizations are a type of logical fallacy. Sweeping generalizations neglect the fact that nearly every generalization has one exception or more. How can you know that there are not exceptions to your pronouncement?

Are you a sucker for making sweeping generalizations without proper or at least adequate understanding(s)?

Regards,
MG

The judgements we are talking about here are not abstract ones such as whether or not the Euclidean postulates imply that the sum of the internal angles of a plane triangle add up to two right angles. In such cases, we can say clearly that there are NO Euclidean plane triangles whose angles do not add up to two right angles.

In deciding whether to believe in Joseph Smith's stories, we are in a different world, that of practical judgements based on limited evidence, to be made by people with limited time in which to make their decisions. Examples are:

1. Is this the right school for my kids?
2. Is that house worth the price?
3. Should I let this boy take my daughter out in his car?

If we waited for absolute assurance that our judgements in such cases were as correct as the above statement about triangles, our lives would come to a total halt.

The question here is whether, assuming there is a God, he would be likely to confide his 'eternal gospel' to us by a former treasure seeking trickster looking at a rock in a hat. We need to make a decision now, while the missionaries are teaching us the lessons and pressuring us to be baptised. I would bet money that close to 95% of non-LDS Americans asked that question would say this was a problem about whose answer they could be a lot surer than in most of the important judgement calls they face in daily life, and that anyone who put their trust in such a story was some kind of sucker, even it is not logically impossible that Joseph Smith really was doing what his followers claimed he was doing.

[_mentalgymnast]

Why not use it?

Because tales of the fantastic are for suckers, such as yourself.

Why is it so fantastic that God would have Joseph use something he was familiar with?

by the way, sweeping generalizations are a type of logical fallacy. Sweeping generalizations neglect the fact that nearly every generalization has one exception or more. How can you know that there are not exceptions to your pronouncement?

Are you a sucker for making sweeping generalizations without proper or at least adequate understanding(s)?

Regards,
MG

The judgements we are talking about here are not abstract ones such as whether or not the Euclidean postulates imply that the sum of the internal angles of a plane triangle add up to two right angles. In such cases, we can say clearly that there are NO Euclidean plane triangles whose angles do not add up to two right angles.

In deciding whether to believe in Joseph Smith's stories, we are in a different world, that of practical judgements based on limited evidence, to be made by people with limited time in which to make their decisions. Examples are:

1. Is this the right school for my kids?
2. Is that house worth the price?
3. Should I let this boy take my daughter out in his car?

If we waited for absolute assurance that our judgements in such cases were as correct as the above statement about triangles, our lives would come to a total halt.

The question here is whether, assuming there is a God, he would be likely to confide his 'eternal gospel' to us by a former treasure seeking trickster looking at a rock in a hat. We need to make a decision now, while the missionaries are teaching us the lessons and pressuring us to be baptised.

If the LDS Corp. is a bogus institution, then you are right. The missionaries should bring the treasure seeking stone into the first lesson. That way, those investigating the church do not have to waste their valuable time barking up the wrong tree. OTOH, if the LDS church is "true" then it would be disingenuous to bring up Joseph's treasure seeking activities in the basic missionary discussions as this would act as a roadblock for many in accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ. I doubt God would want that to be the case. To find out the finer details as one matures in the faith gives one time...even years if necessary...to delve/investigate into the whys and wherefore's of early church history.

There are reasonable answers to many of the questions that come up. But they don't come fast and easy.

I would bet money that close to 95% of non-LDS Americans asked that question would say this was a problem about whose answer they could be a lot surer than in most of the important judgement calls they face in daily life, and that anyone who put their trust in such a story was some kind of sucker, even it is not logically impossible that Joseph Smith really was doing what his followers claimed he was doing.

And it all comes down to that doesn't it? It is not impossible that Joseph Smith was called by God to do what he did. IF this is the case it would be silly to set up stumbling blocks preconversion by bringing up "hard things" that would act as a barrier to investigating the pure and simple teachings of the gospel.

Now again, if the LDS church is a BIG LIE then I'd have to agree with your line of reasoning.

Matters of eternity should be given a longer distillation process than those examples you brought up <g>. Peep stones and youthful foibles of Joseph Smith don't lend themselves very well to the conversion process. At least for many.

So again, why bring it up?

In the opening post, I'm still curious why the fourth option that I interjected wasn't brought up. It seems that it would have been reasonable to do so.

Regards,
MG

[_Mercury]

by the way, sweeping generalizations are a type of logical fallacy. Sweeping generalizations neglect the fact that nearly every generalization has one exception or more. How can you know that there are not exceptions to your pronouncement?

MY sweeping generalizations? Your first statement was a non sequitor:

"blahblahstoneinhat joedidntlie"

[_truth dancer]

If the LDS Corp. is a bogus institution, then you are right. The missionaries should bring the treasure seeking stone into the first lesson. That way, those investigating the church do not have to waste their valuable time barking up the wrong tree. OTOH, if the LDS church is "true" then it would be disingenuous to bring up Joseph's treasure seeking activities in the basic missionary discussions as this would act as a roadblock for many in accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ. I doubt God would want that to be the case. To find out the finer details as one matures in the faith gives one time...even years if necessary...to delve/investigate into the whys and wherefore's of early church history.

Hey MG,

A few days ago, I was reading something on a X-Scientology message board and basically, this whole milk before meat idea was discussed by former believers.

So my question is, should ALL religions/cults/organizations who claim to have the one and only truth not disclose the more difficult beliefs until one is well into believing the more simple ideas?

What about when you are purchasing a car or house, should sellers wait until they have you sold until they share a few not-so-great things?

Personally I believe that this milk-before meat idea is REALLY dishonest... and I KNOW I am not God but I would just sort of think that God would not have to be this tricky/manipulative to get folks to believe the truth. This idea seems much more like a sleazy salesperson than a loving, caring God, but who knows? ;-)

~dancer~

[_mentalgymnast]

by the way, sweeping generalizations are a type of logical fallacy. Sweeping generalizations neglect the fact that nearly every generalization has one exception or more. How can you know that there are not exceptions to your pronouncement?

MY sweeping generalizations? Your first statement was a non sequitor:

"blahblahstoneinhat joedidntlie"

Sounds like you got all your answers fast and easy. Pre-conversion or post-conversion?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

If the LDS Corp. is a bogus institution, then you are right. The missionaries should bring the treasure seeking stone into the first lesson. That way, those investigating the church do not have to waste their valuable time barking up the wrong tree. OTOH, if the LDS church is "true" then it would be disingenuous to bring up Joseph's treasure seeking activities in the basic missionary discussions as this would act as a roadblock for many in accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ. I doubt God would want that to be the case. To find out the finer details as one matures in the faith gives one time...even years if necessary...to delve/investigate into the whys and wherefore's of early church history.

Hey MG,

A few days ago, I was reading something on a X-Scientology message board and basically, this whole milk before meat idea was discussed by former believers.

So my question is, should ALL religions/cults/organizations who claim to have the one and only truth not disclose the more difficult beliefs until one is well into believing the more simple ideas?

Good question. First, give me a list of those groups that claim to be the "one and only" and then itemize those "difficult beliefs" attached to each one so that we have something specifically work with. While you're at it, list the difficult historical issues associated with each one of these groups that would make it difficult/unreasonable to accept their basic doctrines/teachings up front, or the more advanced doctrines later. Your question is somewhat vague in the sense that you seem to be making the assumption that there are a large number of organizations out there that fall under your hypothetical umbrella. Also, difficult beliefs are one thing...to each his own. But difficult historical issues that would act as a stumbling block to accepting the difficult beliefs are something else. Joseph Smith's shortcomings are an example of such. I'm especially interested in your second list.

What about when you are purchasing a car or house, should sellers wait until they have you sold until they share a few not-so-great things?

Of course not. But some do.

Personally I believe that this milk-before meat idea is REALLY dishonest... and I KNOW I am not God but I would just sort of think that God would not have to be this tricky/manipulative to get folks to believe the truth. This idea seems much more like a sleazy salesperson than a loving, caring God, but who knows? ;-)

The missionary discussions are not tricking or manipulating people into the church, although some missionaries do so at times...baseballl baptisms come to mind...but God is not in the picture in those instances. Earlier I stated why I don't believe it wise to get into the hard doctrines/issues before a person has an opportunity to be converted to the gospel.

Again, peep stones should not be introduced by the missionaries in the first discussion. Heck, magic stones weren't even brought up by the initiator of this thread as one of the possibilities for Joseph Smith's looking into a hat while translating the Book of Mormon. Seems like this should be a good forum for doing so.

Regards,
MG

[_beastie]

MG - If the church is true, then why is learning how the Book of Mormon was actually translated rather than a Mormon version of an urban legend a "stumbling block"?

And has it really registered with you that your determination to continue believing in Mormonism has led you to believe in magic rocks?

[_truth dancer]

Hey MG...

Good question. First, give me a list of those groups that claim to be the "one and only" and then itemize those "difficult beliefs" attached to each one so that we have something specifically work with. While you're at it, list the difficult historical issues associated with each one of these groups that would make it difficult/unreasonable to accept their basic doctrines/teachings up front, or the more advanced doctrines later. Your question is somewhat vague in the sense that you seem to be making the assumption that there are a large number of organizations out there that fall under your hypothetical umbrella. Also, difficult beliefs are one thing...to each his own. But difficult historical issues that would act as a stumbling block to accepting the difficult beliefs are something else. Joseph Smith's shortcomings are an example of such. I'm especially interested in your second list.

I do not think any of this matters.

I believe that the milk before meat idea, which certainly happens in more places than the LDS church is dishonest. I really do. I'm not saying every single little bitty thing that ever happened needs to be thoroughly documented, I'm suggesting that a basic level of honesty, integrity, and forthrightness is essential. I'm suggesting that purposely withholding problematic or disturbing information until someone is convinced is not honest.

Again, it really comes down to the question: Does the God of the universe need to use such a disturbing tactic to get people to believe truth?

I hope not.

:-)

~dancer~