4: Joseph Smith never saw treasure through his seer stone but for whatever reason God used it to give him the Book of Mormon.
But this still means Joseph Smith lied about being able to see treasure through his seer stone. You don't see how this creates huge problems for belief in his later claims?
I have asked quite a few. Some do and some don't.
Are the people who believe it's figurative and has nothing to do with entrance into the CK "liberal" or "fringie" believers?
Yes I see the problems. People lie at times. It seems though the Joseph Smith was bothered by his treasure digging days and was pushed by his father to do it. Later He decided it was not appropriate and gave it up. He was young so I can give him some slack there. But yea it is an issue.
As for the other question one was my SP and a bishop as well. I asked them if it was figurative or literal. All fiurative. Others are just members and I do not know it they may be privately more liberal.
No. I never believed that garments protected from physical harm and I no many others as well. The protection is spiritual and many view it this way and are fully believing Mormons.
This is something I will never understand. Some questions:
1. In the LDS believing mind, was no spiritual protection present prior to the adoption of garments?
In Mormonism, you must believe that the only dependable way to learn historical truth is to get a feeling. That feeling Trump's logic and scientific evidence.
What Father would need to trick his children like that?
Überzeugungen sind oft die gefährlichsten Feinde der Wahrheit.
[Certainty (that one is correct) is often the most dangerous enemy of the
truth.] - Friedrich Nietzsche
No. I never believed that garments protected from physical harm and I no many others as well. The protection is spiritual and many view it this way and are fully believing Mormons.
This is something I will never understand. Some questions:
1. In the LDS believing mind, was no spiritual protection present prior to the adoption of garments?
2. What is spiritual protection?
Yes there was and is spiritual protections. But garment offere a number of additional things. First the garment is to draw one's mind to the covenants one makes in the temple. The idea is that in putting on and wearing it daily one may be more aware of the promises one made to God and that God makes in return. Next if you think it through, if someone is considering say committing adultery that person must remove the garment before commiting the act. Thus one more reminder, or protection from committing the sin perhaps.
No. I never believed that garments protected from physical harm and I no many others as well. The protection is spiritual and many view it this way and are fully believing Mormons.
This is something I will never understand. Some questions:
1. In the LDS believing mind, was no spiritual protection present prior to the adoption of garments?
2. What is spiritual protection?
Yes there was and is spiritual protections. But garment offere a number of additional things. First the garment is to draw one's mind to the covenants one makes in the temple. The idea is that in putting on and wearing it daily one may be more aware of the promises one made to God and that God makes in return. Next if you think it through, if someone is considering say committing adultery that person must remove the garment before commiting the act. Thus one more reminder, or protection from committing the sin perhaps.
That is bull and you know it. If a guy has made up his mind to have sex with a woman nothing is stopping him, not even wearing Flash Gordon B. Hinckley under pants.
Now then, if the woman he is going to have sex with must first take off, say her one piece garmies, then yeah I see your point... seeing that would make any guy go flaccid!
No. I never believed that garments protected from physical harm and I no many others as well. The protection is spiritual and many view it this way and are fully believing Mormons.
This is something I will never understand. Some questions:
1. In the LDS believing mind, was no spiritual protection present prior to the adoption of garments?
2. What is spiritual protection?
Yes there was and is spiritual protections. But garment offere a number of additional things. First the garment is to draw one's mind to the covenants one makes in the temple. The idea is that in putting on and wearing it daily one may be more aware of the promises one made to God and that God makes in return. Next if you think it through, if someone is considering say committing adultery that person must remove the garment before commiting the act. Thus one more reminder, or protection from committing the sin perhaps.
Thank you, Jason. I think I understand better what you mean by "spiritual protection". What about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, recalling scripture to mind, fellowship with other believers, worship, daily scripture reading and prayer? It seems to me (a non-garment wearer/believer) that the garments are akin to the wearing of crucifixes, do you agree?
beastie wrote: To be a fully believing Mormon, one must believe:
1. in magic rocks 2. in magic underwear that can protect the wearer 3. God has a system of passwords and secret handshakes to get into heaven 4. God sent an angel with a flaming sword to make Joseph Smith practice polygamy 5. God demanded that Joseph Smith marry women who already had husbands 6. a massive Judeo-Christian culture inhabited ancient Mesoamerica and yet disappeared in an Atlantis way without the slightest trace
beastie wrote:It seems that the longer I’m out of the LDS church the more nonsensical its claims appear. The fact that so many people are fully aware of these issues and yet still find a way to continue believing astonished me when I first realized this occurred, and now still has the power to disturb me, because of what it says about human beings in general.
To me, these are some of the most nonsensical claims of Mormonism. If these claims were presented to LDS outside of their own religious claims, they would rightfully laugh at those making the claims. Tarski’s thread about the rock in the hat prompted these thoughts this morning.
To be a fully believing Mormon, one must believe:
1. in magic rocks 2. in magic underwear that can protect the wearer 3. God has a system of passwords and secret handshakes to get into heaven 4. God sent an angel with a flaming sword to make Joseph Smith practice polygamy 5. God demanded that Joseph Smith marry women who already had husbands 6. a massive Judeo-Christian culture inhabited ancient Mesoamerica and yet disappeared in an Atlantis way without the slightest trace
Just off the top of my head this Saturday morning, these are the claims that are just so outrageous that only religion could make people believe in them. No wonder LDS apologists often appear to have a chip on their shoulders – they have to believe in and defend things that the majority of human beings would simply laugh at. No wonder they so often flaunt their degrees and professional accomplishments. They have to keep assuring others, and themselves, that they’re really smart people despite believing in these things.
I know there have been many posts along this line, but it’s my turn this morning to get this off my chest.
I agree with you in principle. Having said that, would you agree that there are people in other venues of life who also find themselves in the position of defending things that others laugh at and who might feel discouraged or mocked? I don't think religion is the only thing that could make people believe in what seems to others, beyond belief.
I see no compassion in your post for those who do believe. Weren't you one of them? Perhaps that wasn't the connection you hoped to make.
Sometimes, and I'm not pointing directly to your post, when I see ex-LDS mocking LDS I think that what they're really doing is mocking the image of their former believing selves.
beastie wrote:1. Joseph lied and couldn't really see buried treasures guarded by mean ghosts. 2. Joseph really thought he was seeing buried treasures, but was confused for some reason, and wasn't really seeing real buried treasure. 3. Joseph really did see buried treasure being guarded by mean ghosts.
Just to play devil's advocate...
4. Joseph Smith was born with the gift of sight. This gift was in it's embryonic stage at 14. Joseph Smith COULD see things, but he didn't understand what he was seeing. As his faith matured and he tuned this gift in later years, he became proficient in reading the stone accurately.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo
Boaz & Lidia wrote:That is bull and you know it. If a guy has made up his mind to have sex with a woman nothing is stopping him, not even wearing Flash Gordon B. Hinckley under pants.
You're wrong, B&L. The garments stopped me from having an sex with a girl once.
I'm sure it has stopped more than me.
But thanks for advancing the sterotype that men are mindless sex machines that can't control themselves no matter what.
If there's one thing I've learned from this board, it's that consensual sex with multiple partners is okay unless God commands it. - Abman
I find this place to be hostile toward all brands of stupidity. That's why I like it. - Some Schmo