Does it take more faith to stay, or to go?

[_thews]

I fail to find any logic in your argument. When conversing with Mormons, I often find the logic required to cancel out one thing that doesn't make sense with another argument (in this case completely unrelated) that also doesn't make sense an exercise in futility.

Thews, once again you're absolutely right. The two cases are completely unrelated. I'm not trying to argue that there's some connection between a belief in a deity who would let people suffer forever in unbearable agony and a deity who would inspire a man who uses an occult object to translate ancient records. All I'm saying is that it's much more likely that a good deity would do the latter than the former, and that therefore I don't understand why you concede that you might be wrong about the former but you insist that you're not wrong about the latter.

Again I fail to find logic in your argument. If God is an evil demon we're all screwed.

In your post of 7 October you pointed me to Deuteronomy 18:10-11, where God tells Moses to not let any "one be found among you who ... is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead." Verse 12 says, "Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD." How do you go from those three verses to the conclusion that God will never choose someone to be His prophet that makes use of seer stones? Why would a deity who is so evil that s/he will let some people suffer unbearable agony for the rest of eternity, have any qualms at all about forbidding consulting "the dead" in one book of scripture and then later choosing someone who "consults the dead" as that deity's spokesman to the world?

What is put in simple terms is easy for me to comprehend, as I have no agenda to twist it to fit my beliefs. Occult seer stones used to contact the dead and rituals used to appease them to get the sinking treasure are detestable to the Lord from a Christian perspective. I really don't understand why this wording needs to be questioned, as it's very black and white in my opinion.

If belief in a God that allows "unbearable agony" would convince you (or anyone else) that God is inherently flawed, so it somehow negates some other aspect equally as flawed, is the basis for your belief in God, then the foundation is built on flaws. How can you believe in something where you champion God is flawed?

I don't believe that God, as Latter-day Saints understand Him, is flawed. I don't see how you go from the fact that God forbade the Israelites from consulting the dead to the conclusion that if the same God allowed a prophet of a later day to use seer stones then that God must be flawed. I mean, is there some inherent reason why God must require a man to keep all the commandments God gave to previous prophets, before God will inspire that man to translate ancient records? If there is, then I'd like to know what that inherent reason is; if there isn't, then I don't see how God, as Mormons understand Him, is flawed.

You are the one using God's will to allow "unbearable agony" as a foundation for your counter argument... I'm not.

Also, a very relevant question is, does God consider the seer stone Joseph Smith used to have been occultic? You apparently do, and many Biblical Christians do as well. But that was the point I was trying to make about the Urim and Thummim. The people who wrote "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urim_and_Thummim" also thought the Urim and Thummim involved divination, which Deuteronomy 18 also forbade, but clearly God didn't agree with the authors of that website, since He Himself commanded the use of the Urim and Thummim. If those authors could be wrong in their conclusion that the Urim and Thummim involved something God forbade, how can you be sure that you're right in your conclusion that God considers seer stones occultic? It looks pretty straightforward to you that a seer stone must be occultic due to what Deuteronomy 18 says, but I'm sure that it also looks straightforward to the Wikipedia authors that the Urim and Thummim were used for divination.

And again, you keep using the words "Urim and Thummim" to describe Joseph Smith's seer stones... they are seer stones and nothing more/less. The words Urim and Thummim weren't used until three years after the Book of Mormon was written, and if you find solace in wordplay then call them whatever you wish, but in the end the magic rocks Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Mormon out of his old white hat are the same magic rocks used for hire before the Book of Mormon.

If I can ask you a question Kevin, do you acknowledge the fact that the seer stone(s) Joseph Smith used to translate the supposed golden plates was also the exact same seer stone(s) used to see treasure guardians before the Book of Mormon?

I have no idea whether the seer stone Joseph Smith used "to translate the supposed golden plates was also the exact same" seer stone he used to see those treasure guardians. I know some people say it was the same, and I have no reason to doubt them. To be perfectly honest, I don't know with certainty the precise details of what went on during the translation. I just don't see how Joseph's use of a seer stone, even if it was the same seer stone you mentioned, would be particularly relevant in a discussion of whether God inspired him to translate the book or not.

Why is it you have no idea about factual information? Are you in denial so you ignore the truth? Why would FairMormon admit this fact, yet you claim to have no idea? Is this intellectually honest? Here's some Fairmormon links for you to read if you care to acknowledge the truth:

http://fairwiki.org/Joseph_Smith/Seer_stones
http://fr.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/O ... r_talisman

The relevant issue is not how Joseph translated the book, but rather whether God approved the means of translation. I think approaching determining whether God approved of the means with preconceptions regarding which means God would use to do such a translation and which He would not, is not a very open minded way of approaching the matter.

Are you attempting to claim to know what God wants, or would or wouldn't do? If your answer is based on Christian theology, Deuteronomy 18:10-12 is pretty clear on what God doesn't want.

The entire concept of "unbearable agony" is something God wants, because God created us. I don't see life as a pass/fail test intended to prove to God we were correct, but rather a lesson to the soul. Again, if you knew this right now, you would also know there was no hell; therefore, you wouldn't learn what you were supposed to learn.

I'm not sure I'm understanding this correctly. It seems like you're saying that God wants some people to think there is a Hell and unbearable agony for the souls suffering in it, but all the time He knows that there isn't such a place or any souls suffering in it? Is that what you're saying? If not, could you be more specific about what you mean?

Yes this is what I'm saying I believe. I don't claim to know this, but rather it makes sense to me.

That's my opinion, but it's based on what I actually believe.

But see, there's the problem I see with your reasoning. What you believe about Hell you say is your opinion, and you admit that your opinion might be wrong. But what you believe about Joseph Smith, you say is certain, and you cannot be wrong.

Not really. What I'm saying is that from a Christian perspective, seer stones and occult magic are not part of Christianity. Add to that polygamy, Masonic rituals, the pagan book of the dead etc., and I'm certain I'm not wrong... from a Christian perspective.

And yet your belief about Joseph Smith depends on whether God considers a seer stone to be occultic, whether God might use an occultic object to get an ancient record translated, or whether God even cares about a seer stone, and might have just inspired Smith independently of Smith's use of the seer stone. All these conditions might be true or false, depending on how well we understand the way God does things.

You continue to pound the square peg in the round hole and claim it makes sense, but you have "no idea" about whether or not Joseph Smith used his magical seer stones for hire to see evil treasure guardians before the Book of Mormon. How are we to have a rational discussion if you can't take a simple stand based on historical fact?

In the meanwhile, the certainty of the non-existence of Hell rests squarely on the literal omnipotence and goodness of God. I say if we can't know that a good God would cause the souls of the unsaved to cease to exist, if He had that ability, rather than let them suffer unbearable agony in Hell (or any other place) for the rest of eternity, then we can know absolutely nothing about what a good God would do.

You're right in that we can't know what God would/might do. What we can know, or rather base an opinion on, is factual data by acknowledging the truth. The truth is that Joseph Smith was a glass looker, his first seer stone was found by looking through the green stone of a practicing necromancer, he was accused of being a practicing necromancer in 1828 when he tried to join the Methodist church, and most importantly, the LDS church hides the translation method from its members... these are all facts. If you care to prove me wrong, please provide a link to an LDS approved website (LDS.org for example) that acknowledges the head-in-hat using seer stones method of translation.

If you were to come out and say that you are absolutely certain that God did not inspire Smith to produce the Book of Mormon, and also that you are absolutely certain that there is no Hell, then I wouldn't have an awful lot to say to you. I can understand why many people think God never did inspire Smith to do anything. But saying that you're certain that God didn't inspire Smith and then turning around and saying that you're not certain that there is no Hell just boggles my mind. Why would a deity so evil that s/he would allow people to suffer that agony have any qualms at all about forbidding the occult in one piece of scripture and then breaking her/his word later by choosing to inspire someone that did use such occult items?

I've said this many times but I'll say it again... what I believe based on the truth is what I believe and I don't "know" anything with absolute certainty. What I do know is that what I believe acknowledges the truth... can you make the same claim? If so, do you acknowledge Joseph Smith used the exact same seer stones he used for hire to see evil treasure guardians before the Book of Mormon to translate it? This is a simple question, and one you've failed to answer.