Their claim to men on the moon extended to being more than a mere opinion, they presented as if fact which they had knowledge of. The fact that Smith and Young boldly asserted men lived on the moom, is evidence of the type of people they were..quite willing to make assertions of fact about the natural world ...absent any evidence to support those assertions. Quite willing to make stuff up out of thin air, in other words quite willing to bull-s***.
Insufficient. They also obviosly believe that God had created many worlds and that they were inhabited (LDS doctrine). Not, therefore, unreasonable to believe that the spheres they saw were inhabited.
Well, now that's out of the way, we can get down to business. What is the point of noting that BY or Joseph Smith had or may have had the opinion that sun and moon were inhabited?
Now BCspace doesn't know what our points are. Seems he can't make up his mind. Or maybe his mind-reading cap is experiencing some interference.
I know exactly why this subject is brought up from time to time. Just seeing if you're intellectually honest enough to admit it.
Well, now that's out of the way, we can get down to business. What is the point of noting that BY or Joseph Smith had or may have had the opinion that sun and moon were inhabited?
It's the question of "prophetic revelation". I don't think I've made it any mystery why I lost my faith in the leadership long, long ago - 1985 to be exact. And this thread is one indication of why. I still think they say inspiring things (not revelation) and hold to good values. I praise them for the good values they cherish, and I don't feel inclined to besmirch the character of any of them. When do I ever use expressions like "Gordo"? Or "Tommy Monson". Or even "the morg"? Answer: Never.
But that doesn't mean my BS filters have gone into retirement. Good people can utter some very stupid things and hold to ridiculous beliefs. And when they do it on the pretext of "revelation" (even "personal revelation"), I have to do some sifting.
I'm still waiting for evidence that these opinions were claimed to have been based on revelation.
The Church has indeed issued a statement about what is considered doctrine, but that is only useful in determining what is considered doctrine today. Current standards of doctrinal interpretation cannot be applied backwards through time.
Actually, they can considering D&C 107's mandate that the Fp and Qo12 are equal in authority.
Your standard becomes an anachronistic game that allows you to impose current views on the past that are not warranted. To declare something non doctrinal today without regard for its bearing and consequence in its time and place is sloppy at best.
To understand if this was a doctrine of the Church, one would need to examine the attitudes about doctrine in that time frame held by both those issuing the statements and those receiving the statements. During this time frame, it is clear that members considered these men to be inspired and the pronouncements at conference were the words of God for men.
That we have today adopted a legalistic and Pharisaical parsing of doctrine has little bearing in the discussion.
I think you've just been refuted. It did indeed taken some time to come to the conclusion that doctrine is defined by publication (which ocurred more than 30 years ago), but since the principles this definition is based on comes from the early history of the Church, we can indeed apply this standard to statements back then.
Their claim to men on the moon extended to being more than a mere opinion, they presented as if fact which they had knowledge of. The fact that Smith and Young boldly asserted men lived on the moom, is evidence of the type of people they were..quite willing to make assertions of fact about the natural world ...absent any evidence to support those assertions. Quite willing to make stuff up out of thin air, in other words quite willing to bull-s***.
Insufficient. They also obviosly believe that God had created many worlds and that they were inhabited (LDS doctrine). Not, therefore, unreasonable to believe that the spheres they saw were inhabited.
BCspace, I didn't bring God into the equation and I thought that has been your argument against others that Smith and Young were expressing opinion not revelation from a God. So I agree with you, God did not reveal any information to them about inhabitants on the moon or sun. So if we take God out of consideration we are left with these men making statements about their belief that men inhabited the sun or the moon or both.
I don't get the impression based on quotes within this thread that they (Smith and Young) were expressing an opinion as a speculative guess (absent evidence). I get the impression that they were expressing opinion as fact and expected their opinion to be accepted by their followers based on the authority they held. Frankly I think they thought they could say just about anything, no matter how weird it was and it would be accepted, by their gullible followers. And one other thing BC Space, I don't think they were stupid, but I think they thought followers were.
BCspace, I didn't bring God into the equation and I thought that has been your argument against others that Smith and Young were expressing opinion not revelation from a God. So I agree with you, God did not reveal any information to them about inhabitants on the moon or sun. So if we take God out of consideration we are left with these men making statements about their belief that men inhabited the sun or the moon or both.
You still can't remove God from the equation. You can remove a revelation, but it already LDS doctrine that there are many inhabited worlds. Therefore, considering how little was known at the time, it is not unreasonable at all for them to believe such things. That is actually very advance thinking for the time considering what we know now about how many planets actually seem to exist orbiting other stars.
In addition, what common beliefs about such things existed at the time? What about decades later in the early 20th century when the best science declared that there were cities and canals on Mars?
To keep bringing up this issue is yellow journalism at it's finest.
bcspace wrote:The Church has a clear and recent statement on this issue found in my siggy.
The Church has indeed issued a statement about what is considered doctrine, but that is only useful in determining what is considered doctrine today. ...
I'm sorry, no such statement. That (clear? and recent) statement determines only where to found the doctrines - after we defined what are they. The documents listed have a lot of text which are not doctrines. Nobody can say that what are the doctrines out of them and what are not.
Certainly, there are people who think they know it. For example bcspace is one of them but all that he says are his personal opinion - as all the outdated teachings of past prophets.
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
bcspace wrote:You might want to quote a little more, especially off the top to get the context.
A nondoctrinal work plus he's obviously giving his opinion ("I rather") that there is no question it's inhabited. His point is that no one knows very much about the universe including whether or not the moon is inhabited. So to reject ideas simply because they are new—such as Mormonism—is absurd. All true ideas were once new, and often treated skeptically.
Sounds like BY was right. So what is the problem?
You do NOT have an ounce of skepticality in you, when it comes evaluating your religion. These (above mentioned) men did not have faintest clue about science and they blatantly demonstrated it. They never, ever communicated with a supernatural power. If you were a god would you so embarrass your own Prophet/disciple? Their prophecies were utter rubbish, baloney.
We know Joseph Smith said it. What we don't know is whether it was said in jest, accompanied by the rolling of the eyes, laughing at the gullibility of those around him or whatever. We do know Brigham said it and apparently believed it.
Mahonri wrote:We know Joseph Smith said it. What we don't know is whether it was said in jest, accompanied by the rolling of the eyes, laughing at the gullibility of those around him or whatever. We do know Brigham said it and apparently believed it.
Stupidity knows no bounds.
I find it unlikely that Joseph Smith was joking. I am unaware of any evidence to support this conclusion, other than the fact that Smith has a sense of humor. Hyrum Smith, Brigham Young, and other saints believed the sun and moon was inhabited too. If he was joking... then I would expect that those closest to the prophet would have "gotten it", and certainly wouldn't have promoted the idea as their own belief too (as they did).