Joseph Smith the Prophet

[_Ray A]

It is your extreme bias that causes you to make statements like, "I think logic and thinking rationally has almost nothing to do with true belief." This is false in my case. And since your statement was absolute it is absolutely false. Moreover, the Church's mantra for seeking truth is to do so by study and also by faith.

I'm speaking from my perspective and understanding. As one example, which I've given before - what is it that a rational person with even tolerable understanding of the history of Christianity would make them believe that Christians who were really Jews lived in America in 590BC, and practised both Christianity and the Law of Moses at the same time? Or that the "first man", Adam, built an altar in Missouri? This is what I mean by the absurd. Considering it absurd isn't just a whim, or a "justification", it comes from everything we know about the history of Christianity. Now if you and others want to believe that this is something "we don't know about", then you're going contrary your stated premise of belief - that of study and application of knowledge. Things we know from studying history and the world around us. But since this belief doesn't match that knowledge which we have acquired, then it must go into the realm of faith, and in contrast to what we know, and that can legitimately be considered absurd.

I'm just hoping we can recognize the tendency we have to protect our deep commitments and still engage in meaningful dialogue.

I really can't say I have a "deep committment" to anything. I have no creed to uphold. If I do have a deep committment to something, it would be trying to be just and fair with others, and I try very hard to do that in real life.

[_Lamanite]

I'm speaking from my perspective and understanding. As one example, which I've given before - what is it that a rational person with even tolerable understanding of the history of Christianity would make them believe that Christians who were really Jews lived in America in 590BC, and practised both Christianity and the Law of Moses at the same time? Or that the "first man", Adam, built an altar in Missouri? This is what I mean by the absurd. Considering it absurd isn't just a whim, or a "justification", it comes from everything we know about the history of Christianity. Now if you and others want to believe that this is something "we don't know about", then you're going contrary your stated premise of belief - that of study and application of knowledge. Things we know from studying history and the world around us. But since this belief doesn't match that knowledge which we have acquired, then it must go into the realm of faith, and in contrast to what we know, and that can legitimately be considered absurd.

I think your statement about Jews living in America practicing Christianity is an over simplifications and a cognitive distortion.

The Father Adam statement requires us to first look at your source for the statement. Secondly, if your statement is taken at face value; why would that be absurd?

To trust implicitly in temporal science and knowledge is an extreme position; one which I will not assume. Especially since the sciences are always changing and growing.

I really can't say I have a "deep committment" to anything. I have no creed to uphold. If I do have a deep committment to something, it would be trying to be just and fair with others, and I try very hard to do that in real life.

Let's be honest Ray. You don't have to have a creed or a manifesto to be committed to something. I think you're firm in your belief that Mormonism is false. And I think you feel passionately about that. So much so, that you come on this board, biases and all, and make statements based upon you own experiences and perspectives. This bias handicaps your ability for objectivity.

If we can but recognize our biases and commitments, then perhaps we can communicate and learn more effectively.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[_Ray A]

I think your statement about Jews living in America practicing Christianity is an over simplifications and a cognitive distortion.

If that's the case, Lamanite, then the Book of Mormon is the one doing the distorting:

15 Yea, and they did keep the law of Moses; for it was expedient that they should keep the law of Moses as yet, for it was not all fulfilled. But notwithstanding the law of Moses, they did look forward to the coming of Christ, considering that the law of Moses was a type of his coming, and believing that they must keep those outward performances until the time that he should be revealed unto them.
16 Now they did not suppose that salvation came by the law of Moses; but the law of Moses did serve to strengthen their faith in Christ; and thus they did retain a hope through faith, unto eternal salvation, relying upon the spirit of prophecy, which spake of those things to come. (Alma 25)

This is clearly a post-Christian understanding.

The Father Adam statement requires us to first look at your source for the statement. Secondly, if your statement is taken at face value; why would that be absurd?

Joseph Smith:

8 Is there not room enough on the mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and on the plains of Olaha Shinehah, or the land where Adam dwelt, that you should covet that which is but the drop, and neglect the more weighty matters? 9 Therefore, come up hither unto the land of my people, even Zion. (D&C 117)

Haven't you read about Adam-ondi-Ahman? The place where Adam is supposed to come back to? The place where he "originally dwelt"?

To trust implicitly in temporal science and knowledge is an extreme position; one which I will not assume. Especially since the sciences are always changing and growing.

That's the very reason why you should trust science more, because it changes if newly discovered data contradict past data strongly enough. It's flexible. Creeds are not flexible.

Let's be honest Ray. You don't have to have a creed or a manifesto to be committed to something. I think you're firm in your belief that Mormonism is false. And I think you feel passionately about that. So much so, that you come on this board, biases and all, and make statements based upon you own experiences and perspectives. This bias handicaps your ability for objectivity.

If we can but recognize our biases and commitments, then perhaps we can communicate and learn more effectively.

As I've explained before, the stringent false/fraud issue is simplistic, in my opinion. See Joseph Campbell. I've also been interested in the ideas of Robert Anton Wilson. (But I don't agree with him on everything.)

[_Jason Bourne]

And this is where I think problems arise. If indeed this is your position and nothing could possibly come up that would change this than what is the point of exploring the issues? I know I used to be that way so I know where you are coming from. However, I can tell you you will limit your world view to the point of a very narrow position and life will be less rich and full. It will also color the way you view others in a way that in my opinion is less than healthy. Alas, this is what the idea of ONE AND ONLY ONE True Church can do. It creates beings that are perilously pious.

The point of further exploring issues both now and in the past is the receipt of more and more truth. I'm am willing to entertain any and all ideas. Perhaps they will enrich my life and deepen my faith.

But this is not what you said above. You stated that nothing could change your mind. You reinforce this when you say as follows:

But where God has spoken, I will obey, and stay true to the light and knowledge I've received, until I receive further instructions from God.

But many people think God has spoken to them and told them truth that disputes LDS truth. God speaking to someone is a wonderful thing I agree. I just long for something more objective to confirm this. You see when someone says (as did Joseph Smith) that something that was once wrong can now be right and God can command and revoke, well that is fine and good. But that puts a lot of power into the hands of the person claiming to be speaking for God. How about God come speak to us all face to face if he is going to say that now something that was wrong is now ok?

Can you tell me why your God given assurances are better and more right than theirs?

I can't because I don't believe my experience is any more valid than anyone else. If you tell me you prayed about the Book of Mormon and received an answer that it is not true, well then I would suggest you follow God. And I will pat you on the back as you leave the Church and wish you well.

Then you have a more liberal point of view than most TBMs.

The problem with this is it is entirely subjective.

To be sure. So what is the solution? Berate each other? Or engage in thoughtful discussion in order to learn as opposed to furthering an agenda?

Thoughtful discussion is preferable to me.

I certainly believe the LDS Church brings souls to God and salvation. I just don't believe it is the only one that can do this. I believe God worked through Joseph but that Joseph got some of his own ideas mixed in, polygamy is at the top and some of the other Nauvoo period ideas among them.

Is Mormonism perfect for every human being on the Earth right now at this very moment? No. Considering the Billions of people with an infinite number of circumstances, I cannot imagine that Mormonism is right for everyone right now. But I will not concede that it is not the only true and living Church on the face of the earth. I just happen to believe that if someone's true spiritual inclination is for Islam, then he/she should follow that path, and Allah will help that person to become all that he/she can become.

We apparently thing similarly on this issue.

[_aussieguy55]

http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/200 ... /7.11.html

This is an interesting critique of Bushman's biography of Joseph Smith.

"From an academic perspective, however, Bushman's is a rosy rendering. In order to depict how Joseph Smith himself thought, Bushman has to make quite a few assumptions along the way. Almost invariably, he assumes that Joseph (unlike most mortals) had only the best motives and intentions. For example, when creditors begin to catch up with early church leaders in Kirtland after Smith had encouraged heavy investment in the church bank, Bushman chalks up the resulting turmoil to the leader's natural enthusiasm amidst the infectious climate of Western boosterism. While this may be true, it would also be useful to consider alternative explanations—even if they do not shed as flattering a light on the prophet. Bushman judges Smith by a different standard than his compatriots—especially those who disagree with the young visionary. Smith's friend Sidney Rigdon is depicted as having a temperament that "ran to excess," and Smith's detractor Ezra Booth is "bitter and disillusioned." Conversely, when Smith lashes out at his critics, Bushman consistently provides a good reason: "He had to be tough. … He was just a twenty-six-year-old, learning on the job."

[_Ray A]

Interesting review, Noel. Some excerpts of note:

"The Book thinks like the Bible," he notes, an odd notion that runs up against decades of literary critical thinking.

I am surely as sympathetic a nonbeliever as they come. But I often found that Bushman, rather than finding an intellectual meeting point for the Mormon faithful and the children of the secular Enlightenment (if not the evangelical set—but that may be asking far too much), wanted to have the best of both worlds. He wanted both inspiration and rational discourse.

And if I'm not right, I think this is what turned off most TBMs? That Lamanite liked it must say something about his "flexibility".

Bushman argues for both perspectives. He credits Smith with having a "remarkable power to make religion" and a spiritual imagination akin to the mysticism of William Blake. Smith is portrayed as inventive and adaptable to his material environment when he utilizes and transforms Masonic rituals to serve higher purposes. He is given credit for founding an extraordinary religious organization. Yet at many other moments his personal agency vanishes, subsumed by the power of God revealing sacred purposes through the young prophet. In these moments, rituals are not invented but are disclosed, and human imagination has very little to do with it. The sections on Smith's experiments with plural marriage portray a Joseph who is completely ambushed by—and anguished about—the demands that God makes of him to take more wives. He apparently has no say in it, nor any ability to inventively satisfy both Emma's insistence on monogamy and God's demands. Bushman would, I suspect, say that Smith was both a genius and divinely inspired, and was engaged in different revelatory modes from pure revelation to milder inspiration. But I see no evidence to support Bushman's distinctions. (my emphasis)

We're getting closer to the truth now. What did B.H.Roberts say about Joseph's "imagination"? Think. Think.

More intriguing still is the connection Bushman urges between the historical plight of African Americans and the history of Smith's Mormon community. Repeatedly, he invokes the specter of the oppressed slave as a moral analogue to the Mormon. Both are despised, and both are on the outside looking in. Comparing Joseph's rhetorical style to that of Frederick Douglass, Bushman points out that "neither slaves nor Mormons benefited from the nation's freedom." One might well question the ethical valence of the comparison. But if Bushman's bold effort is any indication, Mormons today may well write themselves into a more prominent and congenial place in the American story.

Comparing slavery to Mormonism is like comparing the Holocaust to segregation. As bad as both were, this sort of comparison isn't justified.

Yes, Mormons do have a place, and a significant one, in American religious and cultural history. Warts and all. It's a human socio-religious experience, and we can all learn from that.

[_Lamanite]

If that's the case, Lamanite, then the Book of Mormon is the one doing the distorting:

15 Yea, and they did keep the law of Moses; for it was expedient that they should keep the law of Moses as yet, for it was not all fulfilled. But notwithstanding the law of Moses, they did look forward to the coming of Christ, considering that the law of Moses was a type of his coming, and believing that they must keep those outward performances until the time that he should be revealed unto them.
16 Now they did not suppose that salvation came by the law of Moses; but the law of Moses did serve to strengthen their faith in Christ; and thus they did retain a hope through faith, unto eternal salvation, relying upon the spirit of prophecy, which spake of those things to come. (Alma 25)

Ray...I believe the Book of Mormon to be true. This makes perfect sense to me. The over simplification of the theological differences between Old Testament and New Testament peoples and the Lehites is the problem I had with your statement.

This is clearly a post-Christian understanding.

I think they had a pre-Christian understanding of the Messiah, which was revealed specifically for them. If it seems post Christian then you can attribute it to God, or maybe even a "loose" translation of Joseph Smith supplying post Christian terms and phrases to Old World understandings. I'll take either one.

I know my flexibility is irritating sometimes.

8 Is there not room enough on the mountains of Adam-ondi-Ahman, and on the plains of Olaha Shinehah, or the land where Adam dwelt, that you should covet that which is but the drop, and neglect the more weighty matters? 9 Therefore, come up hither unto the land of my people, even Zion. (D&C 117)

Haven't you read about Adam-ondi-Ahman? The place where Adam is supposed to come back to? The place where he "originally dwelt"?[/quote]

I don't see the problem here.

That's the very reason why you should trust science more, because it changes if newly discovered data contradict past data strongly enough. It's flexible. Creeds are not flexible.

And as God reveals new information I will discard the old. It's the whole, "plowshares into swords, and swords into plowshares" deal.

As I've explained before, the stringent false/fraud issue is simplistic, in my opinion. See Joseph Campbell. I've also been interested in the ideas of Robert Anton Wilson. (But I don't agree with him on everything.)

What is simple is that I was lost and now am found. God wins every time. Sorry Ray. Perhaps I should have been Pentecostal. I sound like a Potters House Christian. :)

Big UP!

Lamanite

[_Lamanite]

And this is where I think problems arise. If indeed this is your position and nothing could possibly come up that would change this than what is the point of exploring the issues? I know I used to be that way so I know where you are coming from. However, I can tell you you will limit your world view to the point of a very narrow position and life will be less rich and full. It will also color the way you view others in a way that in my opinion is less than healthy. Alas, this is what the idea of ONE AND ONLY ONE True Church can do. It creates beings that are perilously pious.

If God revealed all knowledge and wisdom directly into my brain in one massive Matrix like download, then I wouldn't search any longer.

Fortunately for me, He allows me to seek and discover bit by bit. When he has spoken, I am at peace. When he decides to reveal more on the subject I follow those promptings. On issues where there is no divine revelation, I seek it by study and also by faith. Where no confirmation is given, I assert my free will and act accordingly.

But this is not what you said above. You stated that nothing could change your mind. You reinforce this when you say as follows:

Once God has spoken, only God reverse himself. Apart from that, I good to go exploring. And I thoroughly enjoy it.

But many people think God has spoken to them and told them truth that disputes LDS truth. God speaking to someone is a wonderful thing I agree. I just long for something more objective to confirm this. You see when someone says (as did Joseph Smith) that something that was once wrong can now be right and God can command and revoke, well that is fine and good. But that puts a lot of power into the hands of the person claiming to be speaking for God. How about God come speak to us all face to face if he is going to say that now something that was wrong is now ok?

God has never chosen to speak to all people at once. When He comes again it will be as you request.

As far as putting all the power into the individual when dealing with revelation...would you have it another way?

Then you have a more liberal point of view than most TBMs.

How can I in good conscience tell someone else that their theophany is any less valid than mine. Even if it contradicts my own, I place my faith in an Omniscient God who is most definitely running the show. Perhaps they are mistaken, but I tend to believe people rather than mistrust them.

Thoughtful discussion is preferable to me.

Me too, and you're doing a wonderful job!

I certainly believe the LDS Church brings souls to God and salvation. I just don't believe it is the only one that can do this. I believe God worked through Joseph but that Joseph got some of his own ideas mixed in, polygamy is at the top and some of the other Nauvoo period ideas among them.

Mention Polygamy and you'll get bupkis from me. That is a question mark for me; but I don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. So I cool my heels, trust in the peace God has spoken to me in the past, and wait for further light and knowledge.

We apparently thing similarly on this issue.

[/quote]

I trust I'm in good company then.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[_Ray A]

Ray...I believe the Book of Mormon to be true. This makes perfect sense to me. The over simplification of the theological differences between Old Testament and New Testament peoples and the Lehites is the problem I had with your statement.

It's not an oversimplication, Sione. It's a huge anachronism in the Book of Mormon. But I'll leave you to do further critical analyses, "when the time is right".

I think they had a pre-Christian understanding of the Messiah, which was revealed specifically for them. If it seems post Christian then you can attribute it to God, or maybe even a "loose" translation of Joseph Smith supplying post Christian terms and phrases to Old World understandings. I'll take either one.

I know my flexibility is irritating sometimes.

It's not "irritating", just unrealistic. Let me give you an example, which I've given before. If you read a text which had George Washington writing that he "was looking forward to next microsoft update", would you suspect the veracity of that? Well, truth be told, this isn't even a good comparison. Because Nephi, if we can believe it, saw 2,500 years into the future!

I don't see the problem here.

Nor does BCSpace. And that's his favourite line.

And as God reveals new information I will discard the old. It's the whole, "plowshares into swords, and swords into plowshares" deal.

Yeah, but only if it comes from the First Presidency?

What is simple is that I was lost and now am found. God wins every time. Sorry Ray. Perhaps I should have been Pentecostal. I sound like a Potters House Christian. :)

And that's the crux of the matter. You have demonstrated extraordinary courage, faith, and life-changes. And I admire you for this. But Mormonism didn't do this, Sione Pauni did this. And if your faith in God hangs upon Mormonism, then maybe you need to reconsider.

[_Lamanite]

Yeah, but only if it comes from the First Presidency?

I'm going to respond to the rest of your post tomorrow cuz my sister (HUGE ALL BLACKS FAN!) just came over.


But I wanted you to know that my conversion was between myself and God. And, I will follow the Prophet, but only if God confirms that his (The Prophets) counsel is true and correct. I have direct access to God at all times. He is my creator and my Father. And I refuse to let any man come between me and my Maker! That's real talk man....fo sho!


Big UP!

Lamanite