the placebo effect

[_The Nehor]

He never set himself up as some kind of shining example of morality. It seems clear from what I've read that he didn't really want the calling. He never doubted though that he was called. If Joseph broke the laws of God then that is between him and God. God has testified to me that the Book of Mormon and the doctrines Joseph taught are true. Whether Joseph lived them is irrelevant. I'm not being judged by what Joseph or Brigham or anyone else did. They were under the same law I am and I have screwed up. They had the same ability to screw up. My goal is to reconcile myself to God because I have grown to love him. I want to be in his presence again and learn from him the way I used to.

True? Mormon true or Webster's true?

The church teaches the doctrine of excommunication for those that do not practice morality. Joseph Smith set himself above God's law while claiming to be the revealer of the law of God. He was a poser.

So why was he chosen over all others? Was he the best of what was left? "Ye are the light of the world..." Joseph Smith wasn't set on a hill, he was placed on a mountain. His light did not exist or it failed.

It would be remiss if I overlooked your desire to "reconcile yourself to God". I understand what that means. It means that whether or not God exists, your desire is to live a peaceable and righteous life. And I don't think you're doing for a reward. It seems you do it because you know it brings you peace and balance.

My motives are both for peace and balance but also for the reward. I do agree with C.S. Lewis that a fixation on heaven and hell can be detrimental unless you're on a certain level. A healthy understanding of them comes when you love God. Then heaven is a desire to associate with him and hell is feared as it is a losing of him.

By the standard you hold Joseph to no one should preach the Law of God. As a Missionary I routinely taught doctrines I had failings in. As for excommunication due to sins against chastity Joseph claimed God told him to do what he did. Did he? I suspect yes. I should note that I do not believe every claim about Joseph in this area. I don't know why Joseph was chosen to do what he did. I don't expect to know. I don't know why Peter was chosen, why Sampson was chosen, why Enoch was chosen, why Judas was chosen, why Isaiah was chosen, or why David was chosen. For some the record shows no fault in them. In others their flaws are manifested. They were ordinary people called to do extraordinary things. They coped with it as they could. I do not envy them.

[_The Nehor]

They were under the same law I am and I have screwed up. They had the same ability to screw up. My goal is to reconcile myself to God because I have grown to love him. I want to be in his presence again and learn from him the way I used to.

So you don't believe that a prophet of God should be under a higher law than you and me? I guess this is where I differ. Any 2 bit dirtbag could claim to be a prophet under your definition of the word, and I would have to accept that he MIGHT be.

I tend to take morality and honesty and simple little things like that into account when judging if someone might be a prophet of God or not. In my mind, a prophet should be all of those things. Much more than I am.

From what I can tell, Joseph Smith was much LESS honest and moral than I am.

No, I don't believe Prophets are under a higher law. Joseph taught that they are not. Don't have the quote handy but he did say that we can't expect to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob unless we do what they did. Any 2 bit dirtbag can claim to be a Prophet but that's what the whole Holy Ghost thing is for. Joseph repeatedly taught that he was a man and had faults. I take him at his word. President Hinckley has said that he thinks he is an ordinary man with a special witness. I don't think this is some pseudomodesty. I think he believes it and that he's correct.

I'm not sure what the point is of comparing yourself to Joseph. The goal is to become Christ. Christ can judge his own servants. He doesn't need my help.

Do you think that it was to Joseph's advantage to teach that Prophets weren't under a higher law? A prophet of God not held to a higher law? Do you see how bass ackwards that is?

Why should Prophets be held to a higher law? There's no special 'Prophets Only' section in Eternal glory for living this higher law. It's the same law. This is to me one of the fundamental flaws in LDS culture. Despite the Brethren repeatedly claiming they are ordinary people with a special witness some people turn them into demigods living on a vastly higher spiritual plane. If you want to go where Christ is, be like Christ and use his atonement. There's no special leeway given because you're hymnbook coordinator that allows you to live the Gospel in a looser sense than the Bishop and claim the same reward. It's not pride to try to live the Gospel to it's fullness no matter what your position or experience. It is obedience. It is not humility to think you are less than your leaders and shelter yourself in a feeling of relative insignificance. It is laziness.

[_Ren]

Since when?

Since the Big Bang theory was proposed and evidence from that point fell in line with it...?

[_Scottie]

Since when?

Since the Big Bang theory was proposed and evidence from that point fell in line with it...?

And, it's still a theory, yes? Not a "truth" as you stated?

[_Ren]

And, it's still a theory, yes? Not a "truth" as you stated?

I didn't say 'the' truth. I said 'scientific' truth ;)

Scientific truth is determined by scientific 'theories' that have survived the rigors of the scientific method.
Doesn't necessarily make it 'true' true. But it makes it scientifically true. i.e. determined scientifically to be true.

[_Trevor]

I have to say that I agree with what you've stated above, Kevin. Either I haven't encountered the right skeptics or they are, as you say, reverting to the same (well I wouldn't call them processes) techniques as believers.

One group for example, will tell you that the big bang had no cause yet, science is now looking for the cause.

Skepticism is a method, not a belief system. Some skeptics may be confused on this point, but the foundation tries to make this point clear in the front section of every issue of Skeptic magazine.

There is a world of difference between looking for the truth using the scientific method, and assuming one has the truth out of faith.

[_Scottie]

I don't know why Joseph was chosen to do what he did. I don't expect to know. I don't know why Peter was chosen, why Sampson was chosen, why Enoch was chosen, why Judas was chosen, why Isaiah was chosen, or why David was chosen. For some the record shows no fault in them. In others their flaws are manifested. They were ordinary people called to do extraordinary things. They coped with it as they could. I do not envy them.

Yeah, and I don't know why Jim Baker was chosen, or Oral Roberts, or Jimmy Swaggart, or...shall I go on??

While not self proclaimed prophets, how can you so easily dismiss their revelations? Did it just appear that they were swindlers? But, by your definition, they should be allowed to be swindlers. After all, why hold them to any higher example than we are held to.

Plus, Joseph Smith wasn't just an average guy making simple mistakes like you and I do. No, he made some WHOPPERS!! It's not like he just accidentally had a weak moment and had an affair. He based an entire doctrine of his church on having affairs! It's not like he accidentally shorted someone change and kept it cause he needed the money once. He constantly swindled people out of money and then used his followers to get him out of trouble. I mean, hell, if he were only as good as you and I are, I might be able to give him a pass. But he was a HORRIBLE human being.

Any 2 bit dirtbag can claim to be a Prophet but that's what the whole Holy Ghost thing is for.

And they all have followers that will swear up and down that this dirtbag is called of God. Just like you are doing with Joseph Smith.

Joseph repeatedly taught that he was a man and had faults. I take him at his word.

Huh. He certainly doesn't have anything to gain by saying that, now does he?

President Hinckley has said that he thinks he is an ordinary man with a special witness. I don't think this is some pseudomodesty. I think he believes it and that he's correct.

I believe GBH is how a prophet should act. He is far above me in terms of spirituality.

I'm not sure what the point is of comparing yourself to Joseph. The goal is to become Christ. Christ can judge his own servants. He doesn't need my help.

You mean all those self-declared prophets? I'm sure they were all imperfect. But I doubt to the degree that Joseph Smith was.

Well, the point is that if a so-called, self declared "prophet" is acting FAR worse than I am, I might be disinclined to accept his prophetic mandate.

Kind of like how you are disinclined to accept Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker and Oral Roberts. Did you even once pray to know if they were truly called of God? Or did you laugh at the absurdity of their claims?

[_The Nehor]

I don't know why Joseph was chosen to do what he did. I don't expect to know. I don't know why Peter was chosen, why Sampson was chosen, why Enoch was chosen, why Judas was chosen, why Isaiah was chosen, or why David was chosen. For some the record shows no fault in them. In others their flaws are manifested. They were ordinary people called to do extraordinary things. They coped with it as they could. I do not envy them.

Yeah, and I don't know why Jim Baker was chosen, or Oral Roberts, or Jimmy Swaggart, or...shall I go on??

While not self proclaimed prophets, how can you so easily dismiss their revelations? Did it just appear that they were swindlers? But, by your definition, they should be allowed to be swindlers. After all, why hold them to any higher example than we are held to.

Plus, Joseph Smith wasn't just an average guy making simple mistakes like you and I do. No, he made some WHOPPERS!! It's not like he just accidentally had a weak moment and had an affair. He based an entire doctrine of his church on having affairs! It's not like he accidentally shorted someone change and kept it cause he needed the money once. He constantly swindled people out of money and then used his followers to get him out of trouble. I mean, hell, if he were only as good as you and I are, I might be able to give him a pass. But he was a HORRIBLE human being.

Any 2 bit dirtbag can claim to be a Prophet but that's what the whole Holy Ghost thing is for.

Yeah, and they all have followers that will swear up and down that this dirtbag is called of God. Just like you are doing with Joseph Smith.

Joseph repeatedly taught that he was a man and had faults. I take him at his word.

Huh. He certainly doesn't have anything to gain by saying that, now does he?

President Hinckley has said that he thinks he is an ordinary man with a special witness. I don't think this is some pseudomodesty. I think he believes it and that he's correct.

I believe GBH is how a prophet should act. He is far above me in terms of spirituality.

I'm not sure what the point is of comparing yourself to Joseph. The goal is to become Christ. Christ can judge his own servants. He doesn't need my help.

Yeah, all those self-declared prophets. I'm sure they were all imperfect. But I doubt to the degree that Joseph Smith was.

Well, the point is that if a so-called, self declared "prophet" is acting FAR worse than I am, I might be disinclined to accept his prophetic mandate.

Kind of like how you are disinclined to accept Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Baker and Oral Roberts. Did you even once pray to know if they were truly called of God? Or did you laugh at the absurdity of their claims?[/quote]

I didn't pray about those other Prophets. I've been told that there is one person who holds the keys to revelation for the world and God has confirmed this doctrine and who that man is. I don't laugh at claims to represent God. I think they're very serious. I don't think Joseph was horrible. I think he was doing the best he could with a difficult situation. Your claim to be better morally than a man you've never met in circumstances that you have never been in is a huge leap to me. I have no idea how I rate compared to Joseph Smith. I think I would be a better person if I didn't care at all about how I compare to anyone.

[_Scottie]

And, it's still a theory, yes? Not a "truth" as you stated?

I didn't say 'the' truth. I said 'scientific' truth ;)

Scientific truth is determined by scientific 'theories' that have survived the rigors of the scientific method.
Doesn't necessarily make it 'true' true. But it makes it scientifically true. I.e. determined scientifically to be true.

I'm not a physicist, but from my understanding, the Big Bang is still just a theory. It's the most widely accepted theory, but I don't think it has graduated into scientific truth yet. There is still a relatively large portion of the scientific community that has it's doubts about TBB.

[Guest]

I'm not a physicist, but from my understanding, the Big Bang is still just a theory.

So is the Theory of Relativity. So is Quantum 'theory'. So is the 'Theory' of evolution.
The word 'Theory' doesn't mean 'were not that sure about it yet'. It is a technical word for a scientific proposition.

The Big Bang is very well evidenced, and has survived as a theory for decades. I see no reason at all why it cannot be declared 'scientific truth'.

There is still a relatively large portion of the scientific community that has it's doubts about TBB.

Relatively large? I'm interested in what kind of numbers you're thinking of here.
And what do you mean 'has it's doubts'? I do know of the kinds of disagreements Jersey Girl has referenced in regards to whether the Big Bang has a cause or not - and if so, what that cause is. But that kind of question is BEYOND the borders of the Big Bang theory itself... Those kinds of disagreements are not disagreements about the Big Bang theory itself, but rather where the Big Bang theory leads...