Joseph Smith--the best 'wing man' Brigham Young ever had

[Limnor]

Going to have to respond a step at a time as I unpack what you’ve said.

But please remember I don’t really care what you believe, you can do as you please. I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I am somewhat interested though.

You said: “Many throughout the world have taken Alma 32 to heart”

So if a religious system produces fear, blind loyalty, secrecy, or control, then by Alma’s own standard, that’s not good fruit.

So let’s look.

Is there fear? Sure. Fear of losing family relationships in the afterlife of can play a motivating role.

Is there control? Sure. Priesthood authority. While I’ve never personally experienced it, worthiness interviews, dress codes, and temple recommends speak to control. I mean sure, it’s “voluntary,” but the risk of fear of losing access compounds the situation.

Is there secrecy? Of course there is. Temple ceremonies are sacred and at the least confidential if not secret. Sacred if you prefer but the distinction is negligible to an outsider.

Is there blind loyalty? Sure. Simply put, “follow the prophet”, sustain leaders, etc.

We could further break down Alma’s points and summarize with “hey all you gotta do is try to believe (believe what? My guess is that the book or church is “true?”) and you’ll get fruit. What’s that fruit?

Expansion of the soul, it feels good, it leads to everlasting life, eternal nourishment and etc.

I don’t see in Alma 32 any of this: enabling people to be more loving, honest, compassionate, and just.

[MG 2.0]

Going to have to respond a step at a time as I unpack what you’ve said.

But please remember I don’t really care what you believe, you can do as you please. I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I am somewhat interested though.

You said: “Many throughout the world have taken Alma 32 to heart”

So if a religious system produces fear, blind loyalty, secrecy, or control, then by Alma’s own standard, that’s not good fruit.

So let’s look.

Is there fear? Sure. Fear of losing family relationships in the afterlife of can play a motivating role.

Is there control? Sure. Priesthood authority. While I’ve never personally experienced it, worthiness interviews, dress codes, and temple recommends speak to control. I mean sure, it’s “voluntary,” but the risk of fear of losing access compounds the situation.

Is there secrecy? Of course there is. Temple ceremonies are sacred and at the least confidential if not secret. Sacred if you prefer but the distinction is negligible to an outsider.

Is there blind loyalty? Sure. Simply put, “follow the prophet”, sustain leaders, etc.

We could further break down Alma’s points and summarize with “hey all you gotta do is try to believe (believe what? My guess is that the book or church is “true?”) and you’ll get fruit. What’s that fruit?

Expansion of the soul, it feels good, it leads to everlasting life, eternal nourishment and etc.

I don’t see in Alma 32 any of this: enabling people to be more loving, honest, compassionate, and just.

Thanks for your response, Limnor. Each one of these items that you are mentioning are worthy of a discussion in and of themselves. I will say, that the Book of Mormon is key in any of these discussions. If the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be then we can have a discussion. Otherwise we are out in the periphery without any real grounding.

Have you read the Book of Mormon? If so, have you read it with sincerity with a desire to know whether or not it is true? That is, if it is actually what it purports to be? We have some posters here that have not done so believe it or not. If you go back and read my posts over time there are a few cardinal/foundational things that any belief in the validity of LDS beliefs relies on. The Book of Mormon is the keystone. That includes everything in it that leads to Christ.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Yes I have read it and sincerely asked if it was true. The difference is my answer to it being “true” is not in the same way you understand it. My response was it is “true,” just not in an ancient setting.

[MG 2.0]

Yes I have read it and sincerely asked if it was true. The difference is my answer to it being “true” is not in the same way you understand it. My response was it is “true,” just not in an ancient setting.

That's interesting. What do you make of Christ's visit to the Western Hemisphere? Is it "true"? What do you make of the sea voyage of the Jaradites and the Lehite colony. Is it "true"?

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Yes I have read it and sincerely asked if it was true. The difference is my answer to it being “true” is not in the same way you understand it. My response was it is “true,” just not in an ancient setting.

Did you have a witness that it was true or was it a gradual understanding that it was true?

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Yes I have read it and sincerely asked if it was true. The difference is my answer to it being “true” is not in the same way you understand it. My response was it is “true,” just not in an ancient setting.

That's interesting. What do you make of Christ's visit to the Western Hemisphere? Is it "true"? What do you make of the sea voyage of the Jaradites and the Lehite colony. Is it "true"?

Regards,
MG

Not “true” like you think.

This is about to get ugly.

I believe the “Christ” depicted in the western hemisphere was words lifted from the Bible but the body the “American” disciples observed was Alvin Smith.

It is disgusting to me but this is the answer I got.

The voyage was little more than the Smith family relocating and ascribing themselves as ancient voyagers.

Those “barges” were the method of “voyaging back in time” as it were, with the stones being nothing more than the stones put in the hats. Hyrum Page had one, Whitmer, and some others. I believe there were eight people given two stones each, per Ether.

It’s ridiculous but that’s what I have seen, or perhaps been shown if you wish.

Truth is it’s embarrassing to me to admit.

[Limnor]

Yes I have read it and sincerely asked if it was true. The difference is my answer to it being “true” is not in the same way you understand it. My response was it is “true,” just not in an ancient setting.

Did you have a witness that it was true or was it a gradual understanding that it was true?

Regards,
MG

Gradual. But again, it’s not true like you think.

[malkie]

I started to write this comment a few hours ago, then broke off with a note:
"I'll reply later tonight - other more interesting/important things to do.

Let me just say this, though: your comment is, of necessity, full of hypotheticals (ugh!) and special pleadings that the vast majority of the world's population find totally unconvincing."
viewtopic.php?p=2909707#p2909707

I see that several people, including MG, commented subsequent to my note. I have not yet read these comments.

You think so. Clearly the FLDS would disagree with your choice of this specific criterion, at this time, right? But if the Mormon god has chosen the FLDS, and if size really does matter, then the FLDS can grow to whatever size is required.

I haven't seen any evidence of this ever happening. Of course, [1] you are free to believe that it could.

Anyway, as a relatively small Christian organization, you're dwarfed by other Christian churches.

You seemingly brushed off the [2] size/influence/international factor quickly.

What I said was that the CofJCofLDS is the [3] largest...by far...of the Restoration churches. Why you don't see that as an indicator of the 'fruits of the restoration/gospel' is illogical. Especially in view of some of the [4] scriptural prophecy that seems to point towards influence and size having some degree of importance. You might think that before Christ comes that [5] there would be a church upon the earth with an international influence. At least to the degree that Christianity is allowed to grow and have any influence.

What? You think we should stick to sects of Mormonism? Why? If size really does matter, you should expand your horizons. Clearly, the restoration churches are small fry.

[6] If God appeared to Joseph Smith and promised him that an important work would be done through him that would have influence throughout the world, again, I would posit that the CofJCofLDS comes much closer to fitting the bill than any other restoration movement/church.

Do we even need to consider only Christian churches?

I suppose that would depend on [7] whether or not Jesus was the Son of God and lives today. Views on this range all over the place.

On the other topic, different people claiming to get different answers from supposedly the same god is still an issue - a big issue, a huge issue, even. "Gott mit uns" in WW II is a good example in that the Christians among the allies were convinced that the very same "gott" was with them.

Perhaps the god in question is just a really poor communicator. But I still think that the most reasonable solution to the problem is that there is no god at the other side of the conversation. If you were to choose to believe that, instead of choosing to believe in the Mormon god, all sorts of problems would disappear.

That's interesting. So, [8] God has called prophets and directs His work through them, and you call God a poor communicator? I think what you might be saying is that if that [9] communication doesn't happen in the fashion/way that you would like/dictate or think it ought to that it doesn't happen at all?

Regards,
MG

Full of hypotheticals and suppositions that favour the view that you are already committed to - my highlighting in the quote.

1. Are you really denying that your god could raise up the FLDS (or any other organization he chose) according to his timeline and needs? Sure, the LDS church is bigger today, but surely your god could work through whichever organization he chose. You seem to want to limit him to your choice based on present-day size, without any good reason.
   Of course, you are free to believe that it could not.
2. size etc - "brushed off", not quite. I've dealt with this in a later point
3. LDS is the largest of the restoration churches - you think I'm illogical for not seeing this as being as important as you do.
   Again, I have to point out that you're choosing criteria that fit your pre-conceived views, without, apparently, considering if this is also the view of your god. That strikes me as illogical. Of course, you have no special access to your god's PoV, and his ways, apparently, are not your ways.
4. You refer to "scriptural prophesy" that seems to support point [4] - so merely your interpretation
5. You say that there should be a church upon the earth with an international influence before Jesus returns, but you have no idea when that will be, or what may happen between now and then - assuming for the sake of argument that this is a real thing.
   But if were looking at this time for such a church, I don't understand why you're not a Roman Catholic. When the Pope speaks, almost the entire civilized world stops to listen. When the LDS leader speaks, what he says is mostly a footnote outside of Utah.
6. A few million people believe that the Mormon god spoke to Joseph Smith, so your "If" is very significant, and what follows in your comment is purely hypothetical, by the way you frame it. So what if the LDS church "fits the bill"? Even I wouldn't be surprised that you think that the church based on the claim of that communication seems to fit!
   However (without elaborating here) I think that the LDS may not be true to its roots from Joseph's time, so I also would not be totally astounded if it doesn't conform.
   And, by the way, we've talked about this before: there are significant gaps in the First Vision story that call into question the whole idea that anyone really spoke to Joseph.
7. Was Jesus the son of the Mormon god, and does he live today? As you yourself say: "Views on this range all over the place.", and you are simply selecting the one that most fits your needs. I think you're pretty much outnumbered in this point, if size matters to you.
8. Your claim that "God has called prophets and directs His work through them" is (to quote you) just a claim. Even if true, to suggest, as you seem to do, that that makes your god a good communicator is laughable. Did you not read, or do you disagree, that these men are fallible? I believe you have accepted in the past (even to the point of using it to defend them) that these men are products of their respective time, and have normal human biases, right? How does filtering his message through such "noisy" channels make for good communications? Sorry, I don't see it.
9. Communication doesn't happen in the fashion/way that I would like/dictate or think it ought to ... - to an extent that's true. But I haven't just chosen an arbitrary faulty means of communication. Knowing what we mere humans do about how to communicate an important message clearly, it seems perverse that a god would not avail himself of known reliable means to send out his message.
   Anyway, am I not every bit as entitled to "think" or opine as you or anyone else? Your thinking seems, as always, to be tied to your specific religion's teachings. I'm more inclined to think that if there is a god, and if he has a message for humans, it would make much more sense, in general, to choose a direct and unequivocal way to communicate, rather than through fallible men, and ambiguous feelings which muffle and distort the message.

I'm sure I've missed some points here, but I think it's enough of a response for now. I hope I matched up the numbering correctly

Like I said: I believe that your comments are full special pleadings that privilege your chosen viewpoint above all others; and unsupported conditionals, like "If god appeared to Joseph Smith..." .

[malkie]

I'll reply later tonight - other more interesting/important things to do.

Let me just say this, though: your comment is, of necessity, full of hypotheticals (ugh!) and special pleadings that the vast majority of the world's population find totally unconvincing.

I realize there are 'if then's' in my post. Obviously because I'm a believer. Sure, I realize that you and many other people don't subscribe to the teachings of the CofJCofLDS. But that shouldn't stop those that do believe from stating their own views just as you are free to now demonstrate the fact that you are claiming to be purely/exclusively fact driven. Although, I must say, you have said some things in your post that don't seem to have an apples-to-apples correlation and you're trying to fit all of Mormonism (breakoffs and splinter groups) into the same box to make a point. I think you are pressed to do this by necessity in order to keep the narrative alive that you subscribe to and would like to see 'carry the day'. Same/similar thing going on with gott/god.

You seem to want to throw ALL the gods out.

If (another hypothetical) there is a God it seems as though He is being tossed out with all the wannabees. I don't think they can all be tossed out by default. Anthropic/fine tuning principle seems to lean away from that 'hypothesis' and towards something more than what we can know while in the flesh. We can only see the evidence of something greater than ourselves.

Granted, that's a choice. That is, believing that there is something beyond our puny brains. Some punier than others, right? (I'm referring to what critics might think about those "duped" folks that have religious beliefs and more so those poor deluded souls that believe in the Restoration narrative).

Regards,
MG

If I have said anything that would lead you to believe that I would "stop those that do believe from stating their own views", please allow me to apologise - not my intent at all. I don't think I have done so, but if you'd point me to specific comments in which I did so, I'll attempt to rememdy the situation.

Likewise, if I'm "claiming to be purely/exclusively fact driven". I try to use facts as much as I can, but I'm certainly not perfect in that, and I don't recall ever saying that I was.

I'm "trying to fit all of Mormonism (breakoffs and splinter groups) into the same box to make a point", am I? If we're thinking of the same statement I made, I was pointing out that Mormonism does consist of many separate groups, but that they are not all, as you seemed to suggest, breakoffs from the SLC LDS sect. If I recall correctly, some of them, in fact, predate the breakaway of the group that moved west to become the SLC LDS!

The "gott" comment was intended to show that even fairly large numbers of people who nominally subscribe to the same biblical god disagree radically about which of them actually has this "gott/god" on the side. Would you deny them the right to their own interpretations of their god speaking to them? Do you see, though, that not all of them can be correct? To me, this is a pretty good confirmation of the poor communication skills of said god.

If I "seem to want to throw ALL the gods out", it's an illusion, or a misunderstanding on your part. To throw them out I would first have to concede their existence. I think we've had this discussion before, or, at least, you've had it with others on this board. My default position on gods is that I remain unconvinced that any of them exist. Therefore I dismiss the concept, which is quite different from agreeing that they exist so I can throw them out.

Of course there are things in this universe that we cannot explain. The Anthropic Principle is interesting, but I don't see it as confirming that there is a god behind the details. And if it turns out that there is such a god, I'd say that the likelihood that he is Mormon god is pretty small.

No need for anyone to denigrate "[those] that believe in the Restoration narrative". All sorts of people believe in all sorts of things. For me, that doesn't make them per se deluded. I was going to say "that doesn't make any of them deluded", but that's a step or two beyond what I do believe. Of course I agree that there are very intelligent LDS, just as there are intelligent Catholics, Hindus, Muslims, etc. So if you are implying that I'm denigrating people based solely on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, please desist.

[malkie]

That's interesting. What do you make of Christ's visit to the Western Hemisphere? Is it "true"? What do you make of the sea voyage of the Jaradites and the Lehite colony. Is it "true"?

Regards,
MG

Not “true” like you think.

This is about to get ugly.

I believe the “Christ” depicted in the western hemisphere was words lifted from the Bible but the body the “American” disciples observed was Alvin Smith.

It is disgusting to me but this is the answer I got.

The voyage was little more than the Smith family relocating and ascribing themselves as ancient voyagers.

Those “barges” were the method of “voyaging back in time” as it were, with the stones being nothing more than the stones put in the hats. Hyrum Page had one, Whitmer, and some others. I believe there were eight people given two stones each, per Ether.

It’s ridiculous but that’s what I have seen, or perhaps been shown if you wish.

Truth is it’s embarrassing to me to admit.

Wow!!!

This is really different - I'm a bit lost for words.

Have you read any of the works of Orson Scott Card where he builds science fiction worlds in which parts of the Book of Mormon stories take place? That is what your brief description reminds me of.