Proof that you can't see buried treasures in hats???

[_Belial]

As usual, it is up to the critics to disprove a ridiculous claim. You know what, I can crap gold nuggets. Now prove I can't. by the way, I am not required to show anyone these gold nuggets, but I do have a signed statement from my business partners, friends, and family members that says they saw the gold nuggets. You have 60 days to prove I can't crap gold nuggets. Now get started.

That sounds incredibly painful....depending on the size of the nugget. You might want to see a doctor.

Nehor, please stop.

Your posts are incredibly painful.

Wow, your wit is amazing...many posts on many threads declaring who you think I am. All of them horribly written or badly punned. We commend your continual drunkenness. Now if only we could get Nephi to show up and lop off your head.

[_beastie]

Wasn't it Hugh Nibley who once stated that if absolute evidence were found of the court trial for Joseph Smith' money digging activities that it would be devastating for the church?

Once again, this demonstrates that apologists are the True Believers, in the Eric Hoffer sense of the word. Any evidence can be discovered that undermines the LDS church's claims, and it doesn't matter. Evidence doesn't matter. It's all about belief. They probably view it as a trial of their faith - can they continue to believe in the face of this counter-evidence? So they twist and turn and continue to believe.

I keep sharing this quote, but it's because it's always pertinent:

“So tenaciously should we cling to the world revealed by the Gospel, that were I to see all the Angels of Heaven coming down to me to tell me something different, not only would I not be tempted to doubt a single syllable, but I would shut my eyes and stop my ears, for they would not deserve to be either seen or heard.” (Luther) To rely on the evidence of the senses and of reason is heresy and treason. It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible. What we know as blind faith is sustained by innumerable unbeliefs. The fanatical Japanese in Brazil refused to believe for four years the evidence of Japan’s defeat. The fanatical communist refuses to believe any unfavorable report or evidence about Russia, nor will he be disillusioned by seeing with his own eyes that the cruel misery inside the Soviet promise land.

It is the true believers ability to “shut his eyes and stop his ears” to facts that do not deserve to be either seen or heard which is the source of his unequaled fortitude and constancy. He cannot be frightened by danger nor disheartened by obstacles nor baffled by contradictions because he denies their existence. Strength of faith, as Bergson pointed out, manifests itself not in moving mountains but in not seeing mountains to move. And it is the certitude of his infallible doctrine that renders the true believer impervious to the uncertainties, surprises and the unpleasant realities of the world around him.

Thus the effectiveness of a doctrine should not be judged by its profundity, sublimity or the validity of the truths it embodies, but by how thoroughly it insulates the individual from his self and the world as it is. What Pascal said of an effective religion is true of any effective doctrine: it must be “contrary to nature, to common sense, and to pleasure”.

This is why I quit mad. There is no point in trying to discuss these things with True Believers.

More Hoffer:

81 The effectiveness of a doctrine does not come from its meaning but from its certitude. No doctrine however profound and sublime will be effective unless it is presented as the embodiment of the one and only truth. It must be the one word from which all things are and all things speak. Crude absurdities, trivial nonsense and sublime truths are equally potent in readying people for self-sacrifice if they are accepted as the sole, eternal truth.

It is obvious, therefore, that in order to be effective a doctrine must not be understood, but rather has to be believed in. We can be absolutely certain only about things we do not understand. A doctrine that is understood is shorn of its strength. Once we understand a thing, it is as if it had originated in us. And, clearly, those who are asked to renounce the self and sacrifice it cannot see eternal certitude in anything which originates in the self. The fact that they understand a thing fully impairs its validity and certitude in their eyes.

The devout are always urged to seek the absolute truth with their hearts and not their minds. “It is the heart which is conscious of God, not the reason.” Rudolph Hess, when swearing in the entire Nazi party in 1934, exhorted his hearers: “Do not seek Adolf Hitler with your brains: all of you will find him with the strength of your hearts.” When a movement begins to rationalize its doctrine and make it intelligible, it is a sign that its dynamic span is over; that it is primarily interested in stability. For, as will be shown later, the stability of a regime requires the allegiance of the intellectuals, and it is to win them rather than to foster self-sacrifice in the masses that doctrine is made intelligible.

If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible or vague, it has to be unverifiable. One has to get to heaven or the distant future to determine the truth of an effective doctrine. When some part of a doctrine is relatively simple, there is a tendency among the faithful to complicate and obscure it. Simple words are made pregnant with meaning and made to look like symbols in a secret message. There is thus an illiterate air about the most literate true believer. He seems to use words as if he were ignorant of their true meaning. Hence, too, his taste for quibbling, hair-splitting and scholastic tortuousness.

[_karl61]

I'm enamored with some posts on a MAD thread:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 818&st=160

First, Hammer lays down the gauntlet:

You must give us proof that you can't find buried treasure from looking into a hat. In fact, I could if it were expedient that I do so, or are you denying that all things are possible through the Lord Jesus Christ?

DCP continues:

There were lots and lots of money diggers in Joseph Smith's environment. It was a rather common practice in the culture of the day. Does Jaybear really wish to argue that they were all either liars or insane? Can he provide evidence to sustain such a charge? Much has been written about the culture of money-digging. Do scholars who have written on the topic share Jaybear's simplistic judgment on the topic?

My simple question: are these people insane?

I'm so embarrassed. And this is the cream of the crop, the best the church has to offer.

I'm so glad I never sent my children to BYU. How totally truly excruiatingly embarrassing. Oi!

After about three months at MA&D, I started to think the same thing. I saw the way Pahoran, DCP and Selek taunted peoples posts like little devils, and when tough questions came back (with a little anger) the MODS banned them. Deep down I was saying the way they treat people is not good infact I thought the LDS church should
shut them down because (in my opinion) they do more damage than any kind of good - no long suffering, no patience, and everything is done in public; not a good example of how a christ-like MOD shoudl treat people. When they ban people it likely just makes the males feel like they just added six inches to their dic* or for the woman that they lost 100 pounds and got a boob job.

[_Trinity]

The saddest part is that DCP is one of the people involved in this apologetic. If DCP can prove that his hair loss wasn't caused by a UFO landing on the top of his head, then I will buy this apologetic. There's a whole community of people talking about how the US government has covered up the fact that they're in contact with aliens from the planet Serpo. Does DCP really wish to judge that these people are either liars or insane?

DCP does not wish you to bring up the aliens. He is smart enough to see the double standard. Unfortunately, most members will deny that the realm of religious magical mysticism has anything to do with the rest of the worlds magical mysticism

When you guys get that gold nugget crap down, let me know. At the current $800/oz value, we could make some real money here. ;)

[_Mister Scratch]

I agree that this is a very intriguing thread. Certainly, DCP has been heading down a perilous path indeed; it seems he is perpetually on the verge of plummeting off the edge of his apologetic spin-job and finding himself in the unpleasant position of having to, say, concede that "treasure-seeking" = "magic."

Anyways, some of his other hypocrisy stood out to me:

There must be some special gratification that comes from sneering at the religious beliefs of one's neighbors, and even from deliberately seeking out venues and occasions to do so. I confess that I don't understand it. But then, I don't like coconut, either. It's a matter of taste, and maybe even a personality defect on my part.

Well... We know how much he enjoys "sneering" about Mike Quinn, and his critics on RfM, and Tom Murphy, & etc., etc., etc. Is this yet another foot-in-mouth moment for him? Why, yes! I do believe it is!

Here is another interesting tidbit:

I don't know whether Joseph could see buried treasure or not. I could lie, for your satisfaction and heightened amusement, but I choose not to.

Unless I am mistaken, The Good Professor *does* claim to know that Joseph Smith used the exact same physical technique to translate the Book of Mormon.

Thus, the real question becomes: Why are the apologists so reluctant to deal with this matter in a straightforward way? Why not just admit, "Hey, yeah. I believe that Joseph Smith could really see treasure. Sure, he didn't find it that often, but hey, we all know what our leaders are not infallible. This kind of stuff happens." Why not just concede that if one believes in using a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon, then it is perfectly reasonable to believe that Joseph Smith used the seerstone to look for treasure? In the end, I think that Jaybear is quite right: DCP's statements seem aimed at distortion and obfuscation, rather than clarification and honesty.

[_rcrocket]

Unless I am mistaken, The Good Professor *does* claim to know that Joseph Smith used the exact same physical technique to translate the Book of Mormon.

Thus, the real question becomes: Why are the apologists so reluctant to deal with this matter in a straightforward way? Why not just admit, "Hey, yeah. I believe that Joseph Smith could really see treasure. Sure, he didn't find it that often, but hey, we all know what our leaders are not infallible. This kind of stuff happens." Why not just concede that if one believes in using a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon, then it is perfectly reasonable to believe that Joseph Smith used the seerstone to look for treasure? In the end, I think that Jaybear is quite right: DCP's statements seem aimed at distortion and obfuscation, rather than clarification and honesty.

Aren't you using an anonymous name to trash the reputation of a living person?

I don't see any problem conceding the possibility that Joseph Smith used a seer stone to look for buried treasure. I'm not sure he ever admitted to it, but others certainly thought he did it. Josiah Stowel's nephew for one.

rcrocket

[Guest]

I put seer stone in google, since people were talking about it, and came upon this site:


http://www.realmormonhistory.com/newpage13.htm


I've seen some of this in books or at other sites but not all it.

[_harmony]

Unless I am mistaken, The Good Professor *does* claim to know that Joseph Smith used the exact same physical technique to translate the Book of Mormon.

The Good Professor cannot know. He wasn't there, therefore anything he may claim to know is simply hearsay, not knowing at all. And since very very few people know how Joseph "translated" anything, and none of them are alive, and none of them would go on record about it anyway, I seriously doubt that Daniel, a.k.a. The Good Professor, knows much of anything about any of it.

Sorry, Daniel. This one doesn't fly. You don't know, because you can't know... no one does.

[_beastie]

I have to share tchild's excellent post on this same thread, which I am still plowing through -

No plates, vested and familial "witnesses", secrecy for some unknown and utterly baffling reason (no secrecy was needed for the equally precious Book of Abraham papyri). So, instead of God revealing himself to us on terms that don't approximate the very methods and techniques that those who con or deceive use, we get to accept God on Joseph Smith's terms. Joseph Smith defines God based on what he states that God requires, wants, hides etc. What right exactly does Joseph Smith have to define the nature of God for anybody? I didn't grant him that right to declare the nature of God on my behalf.

If people want to believe J.S's concept and definition of God that is fine. But why would believers be anything but understanding when outsiders wanted and asked for assurances that satisfy to a level that they feel is comfortable?

Collusion, deception and fraud (pious or otherwise) has been part and parcel of the business world (on both an individual and group level) for thousands of years, affecting every person on these boards in some way at some time. What is even remotely difficult about attempting to explain the origins of the Book of Mormon in naturalistic terms? It is merely the closest explanation based on experience to what happens every day and has happened to billions of people. What hasn't happened to most of us are the fantastic claims as laid out by those presenting us the Book of Mormon. Since it is the fantastic that is extraordinarily rare, the evidence supporting it also should be.

Really. Apologists like to pretend that since we don't have written confessions with a detailed list of involvements and timelines, that the naturalist explanations are even harder to swallow than the supernatural explanation.

Just who are these people fooling? Do they even fool themselves?

[_Mister Scratch]

Unless I am mistaken, The Good Professor *does* claim to know that Joseph Smith used the exact same physical technique to translate the Book of Mormon.

Thus, the real question becomes: Why are the apologists so reluctant to deal with this matter in a straightforward way? Why not just admit, "Hey, yeah. I believe that Joseph Smith could really see treasure. Sure, he didn't find it that often, but hey, we all know what our leaders are not infallible. This kind of stuff happens." Why not just concede that if one believes in using a seer stone to translate the Book of Mormon, then it is perfectly reasonable to believe that Joseph Smith used the seerstone to look for treasure? In the end, I think that Jaybear is quite right: DCP's statements seem aimed at distortion and obfuscation, rather than clarification and honesty.

Aren't you using an anonymous name to trash the reputation of a living person?

Which reputation are you referring to? DCP claims to be a professor of Arab Studies. I hardly see how I am attacking his reputation in that regard. If you (or he) actually wants to step up to the plate and admit how much of his person---his very existence, even---is contingent upon his Mopologetic activities... Well then, you may have a point. I'll be waiting patiently for you to correct me on this account.