Do you believe the plates existed?

[Alphus and Omegus]

It speaks volumes. When I was younger as many here can probably attest, the theory spoken in the foyer was that the Aztecs were the Nephites and the Olmecs were the Jaradites. DNA, anthropology and archeology killed that pet theory. So, we are left with the delusional or lying witnesses.

Your last sentence makes me wonder: in these days, might it have been a common thing for "witnesses" to testify to things that seemed "normal" then, but not so much now? To testify of things that were beyond their competence? Perhaps they were just men of their time.

It's no different than how most claims of paranormal experiences have shifted from angelic visitations to alien encounters. Frequently or sincerely, people's paranormal claims originate from what they and their culture know.

One area where this is particularly fascinating is glossolalia, the evangelical practice that babbling nonsense is actually a "gift of tongues" described in the Bible. Research on these claims indicates that individuals who engage in the practice utilize phonemes (the vocal components of words) from the languages they know and that different sects have their own specific glossolalic phonemes.

As it happens, the spiritual is incredibly mundane.

[Alphus and Omegus]

Kyler writes like an insufferable teenager:

My only point here would be that, whatever purpose Sagan and Hitch and Gemli have found, I don't think it was sourced from atheism. For all that I find inspiring from both Sagan and Hitchens, atheism is neither its wellspring nor its foundation. As Gemli would likely say, atheism is merely a lack of belief, and that lack is a black hole that sucks up trust in the divine and offers nothing in return.

And the things that tend to remain after that black hole has done its work--an admiration for nature; a thirst for creativity; an abiding concern for humanity and the human condition--fit comfortably within a theistic worldview. Theism takes the philosophical underpinnings for those ideas and infuses themwith the enduring rebar of divine worth, ultimately saving them from the twin rots of nihilism and relativism.

I always love it when Mormons speak against moral relativism since Mormonism is actually predicated on moral relativism, as Joseph Smith explicitly said in his letter to Nancy Rigdon:

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be and often is, right under another.
God said thou shalt not kill,—at another time he said thou shalt utterly destroy.

This is the principle on which the government of heaven is conducted—by revelation adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed.

Whatever God requires is right, no matter what it is, although we may not see the reason thereof till long after the events transpire.

The letter is also a good piece of in situ evidence that the Divine Command Theory of morality is relativistic and incoherent. If whatever God says is right, but anyone can claim to speak for God, then "God's will" cannot be a logical basis for human moral practice.

[drumdude]

Yep. Isn’t it convenient that God always mirrors what Kyler, Rusty Nelson, or DCP already believe?

God never tells them “the Book of Mormon wasn’t historical.” Or “don’t waste money on prop 8” or “let blacks have the priesthood in 1955, you’ll be way ahead of the curve.”

[Res Ipsa]

Kyler writes like an insufferable teenager:

My only point here would be that, whatever purpose Sagan and Hitch and Gemli have found, I don't think it was sourced from atheism. For all that I find inspiring from both Sagan and Hitchens, atheism is neither its wellspring nor its foundation. As Gemli would likely say, atheism is merely a lack of belief, and that lack is a black hole that sucks up trust in the divine and offers nothing in return.

And the things that tend to remain after that black hole has done its work--an admiration for nature; a thirst for creativity; an abiding concern for humanity and the human condition--fit comfortably within a theistic worldview. Theism takes the philosophical underpinnings for those ideas and infuses themwith the enduring rebar of divine worth, ultimately saving them from the twin rots of nihilism and relativism.

Because one thing the data make clear are that for every Hitchens and Sagan and LaneWolfey are the unseen casualties that have taken the implications of atheism to their logic conclusion. Those are people who would've likely benefitted from the habits of prayer that Gemli's happy to toss into the fire.

Whatever purpose Kyler has, it wasn't sourced from Mormonism. Mormonism is just a thin superficial veneer on top of Christianity. But whatever turned him into an ignorant prick probably did come from the LDS church.

I don't find anything objectionable in the quote. In fact, I agree with much of it.

As an atheist, I would never claim that the purpose I give to my life has anything to do with atheism. And I don't think that Sagan or Hitch would disagree. Hell, I don't think Dawkins would disagree.

The main conclusion that I draw from my atheism is that, in terms of giving meaning to life, theists do exactly what atheists do. Just like me, they give their life meaning by choice. What I do is no different, but I likely draw on a broader universe of writings and experience than they do. But it's the same thing, and the claim that they are doing something different is simply a delusion.

I would never have seen the world this way when I was a theist. I didn't have the knowledge or the experience to even imagine what being an atheist would be like. Now that I am one, I can see that the process of giving like meaning is the same as it was when I was a faithful LDS believer. Rasmussen is just kidding himself to think differently. There is no "black hole" -- that's the equivalent of a story told to children to scare them into behaving.

Atheists often make the point that every benefit that people derive from religion could be derived without it. Rasmussen is stating the flip side, everything that atheists use to find purpose in their lives can be satisfied by religion. I have no doubt that Rasmussen derives his purpose from Mormonism as a broad concept, although I suspect that, just like me, he picks and chooses from parts of Mormonism to construct his purpose. The only difference between us is that he pretends he is doing something unique to religion.

[Doctor Scratch]

Atheists often make the point that every benefit that people derive from religion could be derived without it. Rasmussen is stating the flip side, everything that atheists use to find purpose in their lives can be satisfied by religion. I have no doubt that Rasmussen derives his purpose from Mormonism as a broad concept, although I suspect that, just like me, he picks and chooses from parts of Mormonism to construct his purpose. The only difference between us is that he pretends he is doing something unique to religion.

This is a good point, and it reminds me that the Mopologists over at "SeN" almost always talk in generalities when they're trying to critique atheism. It's always "theism this" and "theism that"; never "Mormonism this" and "Mormonism that" because getting into the specifics of LDS theology would be like pulling back the curtain.

Rasmussen writes:

And the things that tend to remain after that black hole has done its work--an admiration for nature; a thirst for creativity; an abiding concern for humanity and the human condition--fit comfortably within a theistic worldview. Theism takes the philosophical underpinnings for those ideas and infuses themwith the enduring rebar of divine worth, ultimately saving them from the twin rots of nihilism and relativism.

But the thing is, he also believes that he needs to know a series of Masonic hand gestures and handshakes order to get into heaven. He believes that dabbing olive oil on somebody's forehead can cure them of illness, and he believes that Black people did not deserve to hold the priesthood until the 1970s. He believes that masturbating is wrong, and that he shouldn't drink coffee, and he believes that God once punished people by turning their skin darker. And, to top it all off, he pays 10% of his income for the privilege of believing all of this stuff. I bet that he also believes he's going to get his own planet one day! All of these things fit comfortably within his theistic worldview.

[Res Ipsa]

Atheists often make the point that every benefit that people derive from religion could be derived without it. Rasmussen is stating the flip side, everything that atheists use to find purpose in their lives can be satisfied by religion. I have no doubt that Rasmussen derives his purpose from Mormonism as a broad concept, although I suspect that, just like me, he picks and chooses from parts of Mormonism to construct his purpose. The only difference between us is that he pretends he is doing something unique to religion.

This is a good point, and it reminds me that the Mopologists over at "SeN" almost always talk in generalities when they're trying to critique atheism. It's always "theism this" and "theism that"; never "Mormonism this" and "Mormonism that" because getting into the specifics of LDS theology would be like pulling back the curtain.

Rasmussen writes:

And the things that tend to remain after that black hole has done its work--an admiration for nature; a thirst for creativity; an abiding concern for humanity and the human condition--fit comfortably within a theistic worldview. Theism takes the philosophical underpinnings for those ideas and infuses themwith the enduring rebar of divine worth, ultimately saving them from the twin rots of nihilism and relativism.

But the thing is, he also believes that he needs to know a series of Masonic hand gestures and handshakes order to get into heaven. He believes that dabbing olive oil on somebody's forehead can cure them of illness, and he believes that Black people did not deserve to hold the priesthood until the 1970s. He believes that masturbating is wrong, and that he shouldn't drink coffee, and he believes that God once punished people by turning their skin darker. And, to top it all off, he pays 10% of his income for the privilege of believing all of this stuff. I bet that he also believes he's going to get his own planet one day! All of these things fit comfortably within his theistic worldview.

Sure. His choice. Used to be my choice. I like my current choices better.

[Doctor Scratch]

There is a further problem with the Mopologists' claiming that theism is all great. They seem to have forgotten all those old battles they fought with EV critics. I wonder: how would DCP, or Rasmussen, or any of the other Mopologists at SeN feel if their LDS readership began jumping ship in favor of Evangelicalism? Is this OK, since, hey: at least it's theism? Amidst all their defenses of theism (or attacks on atheism?), they are skipping over the obvious fact that most other religions think that their beliefs are absurd/laughable/crazy, and, similarly, that they have lots of problems with others' beliefs (cf., for example, DCP's remarks about Calvinism). In actuality, their support for theism is highly conditional. They really only support it if it features paying a 10% tithe, belief that God lives near Kolob, a prophet who was very likely boinking 14-year-old girls, and required temple attendance in order to get into the Celestial Kingdom. The way they are generalizing about "theism" is really quite a cover-up.

It would be awesome if a strong EV critic (or, heck, someone pretending to be one) were to show up in the comments at "Sic et Non" and start laying the smack down on Mormon beliefs. It would really put many of them in a pickle and it would be interesting to see how they managed that at the same time that they're trying to attack Gemli and atheism.

[Kishkumen]

My response to the OP:

If there were plates, they were a 19th-century prop.

[drumdude]

“The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him [Joseph Smith, Jr.] to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book. … I did not attempt to handle the plates, other than I have told you, nor uncover them to look at them. I was satisfied that it was the work of God, and therefore did not feel it to be necessary to do so. … I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work.” (The Saints’ Herald, 1 Oct. 1879, p. 290; spelling modernized.)

It would have been quite an elaborate prop if they had the properties she describes.

[huckelberry]

“The plates often lay on the table without any attempt at concealment, wrapped in a small linen tablecloth, which I had given him [Joseph Smith, Jr.] to fold them in. I once felt of the plates, as they thus lay on the table, tracing their outline and shape. They seemed to be pliable like thick paper, and would rustle with a metallic sound when the edges were moved by the thumb, as one does sometimes thumb the edges of a book. … I did not attempt to handle the plates, other than I have told you, nor uncover them to look at them. I was satisfied that it was the work of God, and therefore did not feel it to be necessary to do so. … I moved them from place to place on the table, as it was necessary in doing my work.” (The Saints’ Herald, 1 Oct. 1879, p. 290; spelling modernized.)

It would have been quite an elaborate prop if they had the properties she describes.

a stack of tin sheets? I am not sure that has to be very elaborate.