Joseph Smith believed all sects were false

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

You think I'm being emotional with the above? It's really being quite objective and honest. Mormonism is listed on web sites which list cults. That's not my doing. The reason I used the word "cult" is because of the way people have reacted in this thread, very cultish. The notion that Smith might have been atheist or deist..is upsetting emotionally to Mormons it seems and the way it's handled is by being disrespectful to the messenger, by pushing one's own agenda(bearing testimony), by ignoring the reasons given, by attempting to disrupt the thread, by protecting Mormons who bear their testimony, by adhominem fallacy..that is shifting focus away from the argument made and onto the person and attacking them.



Let me explain something. I have my own doubts about Joseph Smith. For me he is not a prophet at least in the sense that I understood what a prophet was as a solid Latter-day Saint. What he was I am not sure. I do believe in a God and believe this God works through men and women to bring enlightenment to humans. Buhda, Mohammed, Jesus, Moses, other prophets and maybe even Joseph Smith may have been such prophets.

I did not bear testimony and all I asked you was what you had read from the man's own mouth or pen as well as what you have read of the man's history. If such a request is ad hominem I guess I fail to see why. It seems to determine if he was deist or atheist it would be important to be familiar with these things.

Now when you got after Liz then I was ad hominem. I admit it. I as noted above I am willing to move past it.

So there you have it.
_marg

Post by _marg »

Jason Bourne wrote:
I admitted ad hominem, I tried to move past it, I asked you to do the same and then posted what I thought was a good argument against your premise and you choose not to interact but rather implied that me and anyone part of a cult is dysfunctional in their ability to critically think.

So here is my proposal. Let's do a start over. I would like to discuss this with you fairly and rationally. I apologize ofr the negative I have contriuteed on this thread. If you are willing please go back and respond to the posting where a revelation Smith wrote threatend to condemn him and take away his gift. I think this disputes the theory you started this thread with.

Thanks


Jason if you want to start over you have to appreciate I'm not going to play your game. I'm not going to go by your agenda or whatever demands you have. So, what I suggest is you go back and look at my responses to you where I ask you questions. You show me that you are attempting a serious dialogue with me and then I might consider discussing with you...and we can go from there. If I see you heading in a direction in which it is apparent your only interest is personal attack I'll probably stop..given the pattern in this thread. Keep in mind level of involvement in this board varies by the amount of free time. If I see a discussion is pointless, or the other person is simply being ridiculous or stubborn I'll lose interest. I don't mind you showing me that Smith was a pious con...which I believe is your position.
_marg

Post by _marg »

Jason Bourne wrote: Now when you got after Liz then I was ad hominem. I admit it. I as noted above I am willing to move past it.



I made a request to Grampa75. Everyone on this board has a right to make requests to others who have responded to their posts. Liz assumed incorrectly I was making a demand and spoke up against my request. What also appears to be a factor is Mormons are not used to hearing anyone request them to not give a testimony and they find that particular request offensive. in my opinion that explains this immediate negative reaction to that post I made.
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

why me wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:
why me wrote:I have this strange feeling in my gut that marg is actually Dr. Shade's wife and is allowed to do such things. I have the same opinion that you have. She is quite demanding and intolerable. One must write according to her whims or be darned. I also have this feeling that she is the deputy dog of the board, often doing the job of a moderator.


I'm not defending marg's conduct, but now you know what it's like for non-Mormons to be on MAD.

No, I am afraid you are wrong here. I have seen no comparison with Marg at MAD.


Then I am afraid you are grossly biased.

[quote[In fact, most LDS would have been suspended for harassment on MAD if they behaved as consistently as marg has.[/quote]

That is demonstrably false (Hammer, Pahoran, charity, Zakuska, need I say more?). I find it incredible that you could say such a thing. At least you said 'most', acknowledging that some LDS can get away with consistent abuse.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
_marg

Post by _marg »

In fact, most LDS would have been suspended for harassment on MAD if they behaved as consistently as marg has.


That is demonstrably false (Hammer, Pahoran, charity, Zakuska, need I say more?). I find it incredible that you could say such a thing. At least you said 'most', acknowledging that some LDS can get away with consistent abuse.


What the heck..pray tell..fill me in...where have I harassed?

Come on all you complainers and whiners..give me examples of me harrassing. Please...Put up or shut up.

by the way...that's a request not a demand...in case anyone gets confused.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

What do you mean by "religious" Bond? Do you think J. Smith believed in an interfering sort of God?


Yes, I believe Joseph Smith believed in an interfering God. This revelation strongly indicates that:


Let's look at this Section for the D&C:



THE
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF Jesus Christ OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
SECTION 3
Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Harmony, Pennsylvania, July 1828, relating to the loss of 116 pages of manuscript translated from the first part of the Book of Mormon, which was called the “Book of Lehi.” The Prophet had reluctantly allowed these pages to pass from his custody to that of Martin Harris, who had served for a brief period as scribe in the translation of the Book of Mormon. The revelation was given through the Urim and Thummim. HC 1: 21–23. See also Section 10.
1–4, The Lord’s course is one eternal round; 5–15, Joseph Smith must repent or lose the gift to translate; 16–20, The Book of Mormon comes forth to save the seed of Lehi.


1 The works, and the designs, and the purposes of God cannot be frustrated, neither can they come to naught.
2 For God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round.
3 Remember, remember that it is not the work of God that is frustrated, but the work of men;
4 For although a man may have many revelations, and have power to do many mighty works, yet if he boasts in his own strength, and sets at naught the counsels of God, and follows after the dictates of his own will and carnal desires, he must fall and incur the vengeance of a just God upon him.
5 Behold, you have been entrusted with these things, but how strict were your commandments; and remember also the promises which were made to you, if you did not transgress them.
6 And behold, how oft you have transgressed the commandments and the laws of God, and have gone on in the persuasions of men.
7 For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—
8 Yet you should have been faithful; and he would have extended his arm and supported you against all the fiery darts of the adversary; and he would have been with you in every time of trouble.
9 Behold, thou art Joseph, and thou west chosen to do the work of the Lord, but because of transgression, if thou art not aware thou wilt fall.
10 But remember, God is merciful; therefore, repent of that which thou hast done which is contrary to the commandment which I gave you, and thou art still chosen, and art again called to the work;
11 Except thou do this, thou shalt be delivered up and become as other men, and have no more gift.
12 And when thou delivered up that which God had given thee sight and power to translate, thou deliveredst up that which was sacred into the hands of a wicked man,
13 Who has set at naught the counsels of God, and has broken the most sacred promises which were made before God, and has depended upon his own judgment and boasted in his own wisdom.
14 And this is the reason that thou hast lost thy privileges for a season—
15 For thou hast suffered the counsel of thy director to be trampled upon from the beginning.
16 Nevertheless, my work shall go forth, for inasmuch as the knowledge of a Savior has come unto the world, through the testimony of the Jews, even so shall the knowledge of a savior come unto my people—
17 And to the aNephites, and the Jacobites, and the Josephites, and the Zoramites, through the testimony of their fathers—
18 And this testimony shall come to the knowledge of the Lamanites, and the Lemuelites, and the Ishmaelites, who dwindled in unbelief because of the iniquity of their fathers, whom the Lord has suffered to destroy their brethren the Nephites, because of their iniquities and their abominations.
19 And for this very purpose are these plates preserved, which contain these records—that the promises of the Lord might be fulfilled, which he made to his people;
20 And that the Lamanites might come to the knowledge of their fathers, and that they might know the promises of the Lord, and that they may believe the gospel and rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ, and be glorified through faith in his name, and that through their repentance they might be saved. Amen.

The reason I think he didn't is because he knew darn well, it was all a hoax, just like his treasure seeking hoaxes.


I am not certain he viewed it as a hoax. As noted in another post he seemed to believe in his ability and also acted based on great pressure from his father. The one place where he seems to have confessed it as a hoax was to his Father in Law who he was trying to win over. But he did not admit that anything about his religious career at that time was a hoax.
His institution of polygamy was another tip off, being so convenient following his being caught by his wife with Fanny.


Again I think that the first affair with Fanny was just that. An affair. I think later, as polygamy was instituted it was applied to that affair retroactively. However, I think polygamy was an experiment that Smith applied that failed. Whether he did it for sexual reasons or whether her really believed it was an ancient practice that was part of the restoration I do not know.



If his father was a deist, what gives you the impression he wasn't?


Joseph Smith Senior gave up deism as part of his son's new religion. Joseph just did not operate like a deist. I recall one of his last sermons where he said something like this-No Man knows my history. I shall not attempt to write it. I don't blame anyone for not believing my story. If I had not lived it I would not believe it myself.

The tone and context of this statement and hundreds of others just do not have the flavor of a deist or atheist. Plus those closest to him did not perceive such an attitude.
_Yoda

Post by _Yoda »

marg wrote:I made a request to Grampa75. Everyone on this board has a right to make requests to others who have responded to their posts. Liz assumed incorrectly I was making a demand and spoke up against my request. What also appears to be a factor is Mormons are not used to hearing anyone request them to not give a testimony and they find that particular request offensive. in my opinion that explains this immediate negative reaction to that post I made.


Actually, I assumed that you were making a global board request, rather than a request specific to your thread. Once that was clarified, I apologized for the misunderstanding.

The request about not giving a testimony didn't offend me. What offended me was what I mistakenly thought was an attempt to censor a poster's opinion...which is what a testimony is....a poster's opinion.
_marg

Post by _marg »

liz3564 wrote:The request about not giving a testimony didn't offend me. What offended me was what I mistakenly thought was an attempt to censor a poster's opinion...which is what a testimony is....a poster's opinion.


Well that's where we disagree or I fail to understand...because I don't view testimonies as opinions relevant to an issue. This is what I said to Grampa75 "please do not respond with your testimony of your faith, please stick with the issues presented and address contents of post to which you are replying using your "reasoning".

Someone can post an opinion about "Brigham Young " in this thread or any other ..and it's an irrelevant opinion unless it is pertains to the issues being discussed. Sure they are in their rights to do so in an entirely free speech board but then again in response to them it is the right of others to ask that they reply addressing the issues.
_marg

Post by _marg »

Jason,

I asked these questions as well, keep in mind I'm not placing a moral value judgement on Smith nighttime head in the hat treasure seeking activities.


Are you suggesting to me, that you don't appreciate any ideas in the Book of Mormon as absurd..magical thinking sort of stuff?

Do you think J. Smith was a sincere con man with his night time head in the hat treasure seeking activity. By that I mean to you think he truly believed he had the capability of finding treasure underground by the manner he employed?

How long did J. Smith conduct this night time treasure seeking activity for?

Do you think his family and friends didn't appreciate it was a con?

Do you think there might have been some other benefit besides payment from his marks for this treasure seeking activity?

Did Smith ever come clean about this activity being a con..if so to whom?

And there is one other thing I'd like you to do, please read the post I made on pyschology of con artists so that we might perhaps discuss it later.

I need answers to these before continuuing.
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Are you suggesting to me, that you don't appreciate any ideas in the Book of Mormon as absurd..magical thinking sort of stuff?


Certainly from a secular stand point there are absurdities in the Book of Mormon. The journey of the Jardites seems hard to account for. The journey by Lehi's family seems more plausible. The account of there being light for a day and a nigh and a day can only be attributed to the miraculous and is not explainable to me. I guess I would have to say there are no more absurdities in the Book of Mormon then there are in the Bible. Well, the Bible does have some grounding in historical fact and places in the Bible we know existed. The Book of Mormon has scant evidence for it being a true historical record and an account of real people. Both books must be taken ultimately on faith to be believed.

Do you think J. Smith was a sincere con man with his night time head in the hat treasure seeking activity. By that I mean to you think he truly believed he had the capability of finding treasure underground by the manner he employed?


I think it is probable that he did believe he had some ability to do this. I do not know this for certain.

How long did J. Smith conduct this night time treasure seeking activity for?


Off the top of my head probably for 5-8 year off and on.

Do you think his family and friends didn't appreciate it was a con?


I think his father and his friends believed it. He had partners in this activity in the Palmyra vicinity that believed he and another young women, I forget her name, had abilities. In fact when he allegedly had the plates for the Book of Mormon locals believed he had them because the came after them a number of times. Some of them believed that they had a right in a share of the plated because they were partner in the treasure seeking activity.

Do you think there might have been some other benefit besides payment from his marks for this treasure seeking activity?


Prestige, fame, etc all could have been benefits.

Did Smith ever come clean about this activity being a con..if so to whom?


The only account I know of is the admission to his Father in Law. In his official history he denies treasure seeking activity but for his employment by the Knight family.

And there is one other thing I'd like you to do, please read the post I made on psychology of con artists so that we might perhaps discuss it later.



I will try to get to it later.
Post Reply