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

[Limnor]

I have and I think Orson Scott Card’s books about Alvin indicate he knows the truth.

[Limnor]

Wow!!!

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

Malkie this really means a lot to me. This analysis represents over a decade of study with little to no positive feedback.

Thank you.

[malkie]

Wow!!!

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

Malkie this really means a lot to me. This analysis represents over a decade of study with little to no positive feedback.

Thank you.

I'm far from the best person to do this, but I will try to find some time on Sunday, or early next week, to have a look at these ideas. Should I simply start with the "Codex/Confessional Allegory" thread? I have to admit that, being too occupied with MG on other topics, I haven't been following that thread.

[Limnor]

Malkie this really means a lot to me. This analysis represents over a decade of study with little to no positive feedback.

Thank you.

I'm far from the best person to do this, but I will try to find some time on Sunday, or early next week, to have a look at these ideas. Should I simply start with the "Codex/Confessional Allegory" thread? I have to admit that, being too occupied with MG on other topics, I haven't been following that thread.

Yes please. I posted an AI-assisted storyboard in the AI thread to aid with verbalizing the concept. My hope is for others to consider the thought and contribute with reasonable candidates for character alignment with real world counterparts.

For example, candidates for the sons of Mosiah include Joseph, Parley P Pratt, Hyrum, and Oliver.

I believe they provided recording of their journeys which were “translated” back in time and framed as ancient.

[Marcus]

I'm far from the best person to do this, but I will try to find some time on Sunday, or early next week, to have a look at these ideas. Should I simply start with the "Codex/Confessional Allegory" thread? I have to admit that, being too occupied with MG on other topics, I haven't been following that thread.

Yes please. I posted an AI-assisted storyboard in the AI thread to aid with verbalizing the concept. My hope is for others to consider the thought and contribute with reasonable candidates for character alignment with real world counterparts.

For example, candidates for the sons of Mosiah include Joseph, Parley P Pratt, Hyrum, and Oliver.

I believe they provided recording of their journeys which were “translated” back in time and framed as ancient.

I am a big Sci fi reader, although I haven't read everything Card has written, mostly some of his earlier stuff and short stories. I know you've got some things going on other threads, so I am asking along with Malkie where to read (and apologize also for not having seen it earlier) --eta: I'll take a look at your Codex thread!

I am very interested in your assessment of Orson Scott card's Sci fi as being related to the Smith saga-- are you referring to his Alvin Maker series?

[MG 2.0]

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.

Interesting. So, God revealed this to you? Don't be embarrassed. I've heard stranger things.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

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.

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



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.



[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.



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.



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..." .

In #9 you use the words, "it seems". I would take that and apply that to the rest of what you are saying. You, just as much as a religionist, are coming at all of this with a degree of 'imagination' that conforms with a worldview that you have become just as comfortable with as any religionist. You talk about "preconceived views". Methinks you have your own. I suppose we could continue to go round and round.

I do appreciate the time you took to answer and share your thoughts, malkie. You've invested a lot of time and effort to get where you're at. One cannot fault that.

I still think you're not fully engaging with the importance and impact of the size of the church and the ability it has for outreach throughout the world. But I'll leave it at that.

Have a good weekend also.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

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..." .

In #9 you use the words, "it seems". I would take that and apply that to the rest of what you are saying. You, just as much as a religionist, are coming at all of this with a degree of 'imagination' that conforms with a worldview that you have become just as comfortable with as any religionist. You talk about "preconceived views". Methinks you have your own. I suppose we could continue to go round and round.

I do appreciate the time you took to answer and share your thoughts, malkie. You've invested a lot of time and effort to get where you're at. One cannot fault that.

I still think you're not fully engaging with the importance and impact of the size of the church and the ability it has for outreach throughout the world. But I'll leave it at that.

Have a good weekend also.

Regards,
MG

Of course I have preconceived ideas - we all do. And, yes, as I said, I use facts when I think I have them, and hypotheticals and opinions otherwise. Do not assume that "seems" applies everywhere - look at my individual statements, as I did with yours.

If you don't think the size and reach of the LDS church has been adequately covered (by me and by others) then I guess that you and the 0.05% of the world population who attend LDS services each week need to make more noise - the other 99.8% of the non-LDS world and the inactive 0.15% don't seem to be impressed.

As others have pointed out, even the Seventh Day Adventists and the Jehovah's witnesses are eating your lunch, and running away with your snack money.

[Marcus]

In #9 you use the words, "it seems". I would take that and apply that to the rest of what you are saying. You, just as much as a religionist, are coming at all of this with a degree of 'imagination' that conforms with a worldview that you have become just as comfortable with as any religionist. You talk about "preconceived views". Methinks you have your own. I suppose we could continue to go round and round.

Oh please. Malkie used the phrase 'it seems' to illustrate his opinion about a potential situation. That's how grammar works. It is gross hyperbole for the mental gymnast to define this as 'imagination' equivalent to a belief in a supernatural being--but of course inferior to his beliefs. It's fine for believers to speak of their belief, but it is nonsensical for a believer to define correct grammatical usage as the equivalent of inferior "imagination."

If mentalgymnast would also define his own beliefs as "imagination" it would somewhat ameliorate the ridiculousness, but he doesn't.

...As others have pointed out, even the Seventh Day Adventists and the Jehovah's witnesses are eating your lunch, and running away with your snack money.

Yes.

[malkie]

In #9 you use the words, "it seems". I would take that and apply that to the rest of what you are saying. You, just as much as a religionist, are coming at all of this with a degree of 'imagination' that conforms with a worldview that you have become just as comfortable with as any religionist. You talk about "preconceived views". Methinks you have your own. I suppose we could continue to go round and round.

Oh please. Malkie used the phrase 'it seems' to illustrate his opinion about a potential situation. That's how grammar works. It is gross hyperbole for the mental gymnast to define this as 'imagination' equivalent to a belief in a supernatural being--but of course inferior to his beliefs. It's fine for believers to speak of their belief, but it is nonsensical for a believer to define correct grammatical usage as the equivalent of inferior "imagination."

If mentalgymnast would also define his own beliefs as "imagination" it would somewhat ameliorate the ridiculousness, but he doesn't.

...As others have pointed out, even the Seventh Day Adventists and the Jehovah's witnesses are eating your lunch, and running away with your snack money.

Yes.

Thanks for your comment, Marcus. Since MG likely has you on "ignore".

As you probably read, my counter to MG's ludicrous suggestion was simply to suggest that he read each of my statements separately to determine the degree of fact and/or opinion, rather than taking a single instance of "it seems" in one statement to apply to all.

But I'm glad that you called it out. Till now, in this thread, I've avoided suggesting that MG was doing anything other than arguing in good faith, but I think that it's probably a good idea to highlight this. OTOH, it could just be caused by lack of attention, tiredness, etc.

Edited to add the significant word "ignore". How did I manage not to notice that omission‽‽