Ex'd for defending Joseph?

[I Have Questions]

No, the historical arc isn't important. Discovering Smith's many affairs and "plural marriages" is exactly like discovering his secret bank account. It speaks for itself. He was a scammer looking for status to get sex. The end.

Calling that verdict "simplistic" and talking about historical arcs is just squeezing your eyes up tight against the midday sun and saying that it's still night.

No, it's not. That's the sun. Open your eyes.

Then it's settled.

Regards,
MG

Smith’s affairs were “illicit” for a number of reasons. 1. They were conducted behind his wife’s back. 2. Plural marriage was illegal. Joseph Smith was a prolific adulterer. The evidence is unambiguous.

[Kishkumen]

The LDS Church inflicted this wound on itself, and it is sad that the members once again pay for the shortsighted business strategies of the leaders. LDS leaders suppressed knowledge of polygamy and proselyted a bunch of Protestant converts. Then they joined the "moral" crusade to protect the definition of marriage being between one man and one woman. Oh, big surprise! Now they have members who cannot accept that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. LOL!!! Church's fault, and I have much more sympathy for the deliberately misled members than the leaders who choreographed this confusing nightmare.

[Limnor]

No, the historical arc isn't important. Discovering Smith's many affairs and "plural marriages" is exactly like discovering his secret bank account. It speaks for itself. He was a scammer looking for status to get sex. The end.

Calling that verdict "simplistic" and talking about historical arcs is just squeezing your eyes up tight against the midday sun and saying that it's still night.

No, it's not. That's the sun. Open your eyes.

Then it's settled.

Regards,
MG

I mean, if we’re declaring things “settled” based on evidence, then yes—Joseph was a con man.

It’s hard to dismiss Joseph’s own admission in the 1826 proceedings that he was pretending.

[MG 2.0]

Then it's settled.

Regards,
MG

I mean, if we’re declaring things “settled” based on evidence, then yes—Joseph was a con man.

It’s hard to dismiss Joseph’s own admission in the 1826 proceedings that he was pretending.

Depends on your sources. Same thing holds true with Nauvoo polygamy you've referred to.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

When even Joseph’s own admission isn’t enough, there is no evidence that will ever count.

Edited to add:

I’m referring specifically to the claim that Joseph was not knowingly pretending—if his own admission doesn’t count against that, what would?

What the 1826 examination shows isn’t just a failed con, it shows that people believed even in the face of direct confirmation that he was pretending, nothing had ever been found.

The strange part isn’t that Joseph admitted pretending, it’s that the admission didn’t result in reduction of belief, because it seems the evidence meter had been set to infinity.

[Fence Sitter]

When even Joseph’s own admission isn’t enough, there is no evidence that will ever count.

Edited to add:

I’m referring specifically to the claim that Joseph was not knowingly pretending—if his own admission doesn’t count against that, what would?

What the 1826 examination shows isn’t just a failed con, it shows that people believed even in the face of direct confirmation that he was pretending, nothing had ever been found.

The strange part isn’t that Joseph admitted pretending, it’s that the admission didn’t result in reduction of belief, because it seems the evidence meter had been set to infinity.

It really does depend on which sources you choose to accept.
If you ignore those that show he knowingly pretended, maintaining a false narrative becomes effortless—easy enough, really.
The old adage about how easy it is to fool people, compared to convincing them they’ve been fooled, comes to mind.

[Limnor]

It really does depend on which sources you choose to accept.
If you ignore those that show he knowingly pretended, maintaining a false narrative becomes effortless—easy enough, really.
The old adage about how easy it is to fool people, compared to convincing them they’ve been fooled, comes to mind.

That’s fair. I worked on the following last night and had been thinking about posting a new thread, but was trying to decide whether it mattered. Hopefully this contribution is received in the charitable manner in which is intended:

When Evidence Matters

I’ve been thinking about how to describe this phenomenon, particularly from a charitable point of view. I’d like to understand better the different worldviews at play here.

I tend to think about things from a place where claims are interpreted through what evidence can reasonably count against them.

But it is possible to think about things from a place where some conclusions are predetermined and non-negotiable, regardless of evidence. The words are similar, words like sources and interpretation, but they aren’t allowed to change conclusions.

To someone playing by evidentiary rules, that could be described as a divorce from reality, but if I’m understanding it correctly, perhaps it is better described as a situation where evidence is irrelevant if it conflicts with a previous commitment. This mindset has difficulty processing a critique that questions conclusions.

So if you remove falsifiability through evidence, does the discussion stop being meaningful and simply become an avenue to express or reaffirm those commitments? What does it mean practically?

Does it mean we are no longer disagreeing about Joseph, but rather disagreeing about what it means for evidence to matter at all?

I’m asking these questions because I’m trying to understand how to communicate more clearly across different ways of thinking.

[Fence Sitter]

That’s fair. I worked on the following last night and had been thinking about posting a new thread, but was trying to decide whether it mattered. Hopefully this contribution is received in the charitable manner in which is intended:

Thank you for the thoughtful reply to a flippant response on my part. I have spent a few days thinking about how I would respond, or whether I would at all. Increasingly, message board discussions on Mormonism tend to rehash topics that have been discussed ad nauseam. That said, I have found your approach and posts on the subject matter novel and interesting, at least in those I have read.

When Evidence Matters

I’ve been thinking about how to describe this phenomenon, particularly from a charitable point of view. I’d like to understand better the different worldviews at play here.

I tend to think about things from a place where claims are interpreted through what evidence can reasonably count against them.

I like to think of myself as an empiricist, but in practice I am probably closer to a pragmatist. I do accept the adage that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, though that may be somewhat question-begging in this context.

But it is possible to think about things from a place where some conclusions are predetermined and non-negotiable, regardless of evidence. The words are similar, words like sources and interpretation, but they aren’t allowed to change conclusions.

To someone playing by evidentiary rules, that could be described as a divorce from reality, but if I’m understanding it correctly, perhaps it is better described as a situation where evidence is irrelevant if it conflicts with a previous commitment. This mindset has difficulty processing a critique that questions conclusions.

So if you remove falsifiability through evidence, does the discussion stop being meaningful and simply become an avenue to express or reaffirm those commitments? What does it mean practically?

I think it means that one is no longer really having a discussion but instead is participating—perhaps involuntarily—in something closer to another person’s fast and testimony meeting. That is how MG’s posts strike me.

Does it mean we are no longer disagreeing about Joseph, but rather disagreeing about what it means for evidence to matter at all?

I’m asking these questions because I’m trying to understand how to communicate more clearly across different ways of thinking.

I think you communicate quite clearly; it is your expectation of receiving substantive responses from MG that may be somewhat misplaced. Still, I would encourage you to continue posting and responding. Even if the exchange is largely one-sided, and the objections range from trolling to wishy-washy or insincere, your observations remain informative and distinct

[MG 2.0]

I think you communicate quite clearly; it is your expectation of receiving substantive responses from MG that may be somewhat misplaced. Still, I would encourage you to continue posting and responding. Even if the exchange is largely one-sided, and the objections range from trolling to wishy-washy or insincere, your observations remain informative and distinct

Actually, I find Limnor's thinking/contributions interesting and thought provoking. As far as being "one sided" I would say that to some extent or another this is going to happen as persons are coming at things from different perspectives and personal biases that are more or less 'baked in'.

I see that from my end as I read the comments of those that I disagree with at one level or another. I also see particular individuals as coming across as insincere and exhibiting 'troll-like' tendencies and behavior. So it works both ways.

I am interested in trying to determine the 'why' as to the biases and points of view that others have and the evidence they are willing to entertain.

I then try and hold that up as a mirror in order to determine my own honesty/integrity as I see/view myself in relation to those I interact with.

Regards,
MG

[Limnor]

Thank you for the thoughtful reply to a flippant response on my part. I have spent a few days thinking about how I would respond, or whether I would at all. Increasingly, message board discussions on Mormonism tend to rehash topics that have been discussed ad nauseam. That said, I have found your approach and posts on the subject matter novel and interesting, at least in those I have read.

…..

I think it means that one is no longer really having a discussion but instead is participating—perhaps involuntarily—in something closer to another person’s fast and testimony meeting. That is how MG’s posts strike me.

…

I think you communicate quite clearly; it is your expectation of receiving substantive responses from MG that may be somewhat misplaced. Still, I would encourage you to continue posting and responding. Even if the exchange is largely one-sided, and the objections range from trolling to wishy-washy or insincere, your observations remain informative and distinct

Thank you FS—I’ll keep posting. I don’t have the lived experience of Mormons so sometimes the inside knowledge passes right by me.

I’ve been thinking through the mention of synagogues and temples in the Book of Mormon and am considering introducing a discussion about how temples are portrayed biblically vs in Mormon thought.