Another Anti-Mormon Who Just Doesn't Get It

[_beastie]

Apparently, something I said has triggered in Beastie a major episode of hysteria. Who would have thought that the mere mention of joy and love and Christlike character would engender within her such defensive madness (to the point of making the words she conveniently put into my mouth entirely unrecognizable to me)? Clearly, for such noxiuos weeds of delusionary stereotyping to proliferate as they have, requires the field of her mind to be heavily fertilized with religious prejudice, if not bigotry. And to think she see herself in a position to mock. The irony is thick, though evidently lost on her.

So let’s look at my specific statements to see if, indeed, I am engaged in “delusionary stereotyping” with a mind heavily “fertilized by with religious prejudice, if not bigotry”.

Talk about nit-picking. Does or does not drinking coffee keep one out of the Celestial Kingdom? Yes, it does. Now, one can talk about WHY that is - perhaps refusing to follow all God's commandments, even the ones that don't make sense - indicates the lack of the type of personality and faith required for the Celestial Kingdom - but Scottie's point remains. Drinking coffee will keep one out of the Celestial Kingdom.

Unless Wade wants to argue that drinking coffee will NOT keep one out of the Celestial Kingdom, then this statement is correct. It will keep a believer out of the temple, and being barred from the temple bars one from the Celestial Kingdom. Wade wants to parse about why this is so – probably he would argue that it isn’t the coffee, per se, but the lack of obedience and faith that keeps one out of the Celestial Kingdom. But I indicated that one could talk about the WHY, but that doesn’t change the FACT – that drinking coffee will keep one out of the Celestial Kingdom.

So is this delusionary stereotyping? No. It is merely stating facts.

Yes, Scottie, the choice is yours. You should be able to 'choose' to believe that, for example, God taught Joseph Smith how to find the gold plates and translate them by having him use a peep stone to dig for slippery buried treasure as a youth.

It’s interesting that Wade is objecting to me putting words in his mouth, when he just posted this on another thread, about Joseph Smith using the peepstone to dig for slippery buried treasure.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=9990

Wade:

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that the application of a fundamental principle of learning (i.e. improved ability coming through graduated practice) to spiritual matters would set the naysayers to overly dramatic clucking. That tends to happen when people scoff about things they have little if any clue.

As I indicated on that thread, the only way this statement makes any sense is if one believes that Joseph Smith actually could see buried treasures with his peepstone. He called them slippery treasures himself.

So is this delusionary stereotyping? No, it’s stating facts.

You can 'choose' to believe that God wanted Joseph Smith to practice polgyamy sooooo very badly that he sent an angel with a sword to ensure it.

What could Wade’s argument possibly be here? He believes God wanted Joseph Smith to practice polygamy very badly. Joseph F. Smith himself affirmed that an angel with a sword commanded Joseph Smith to practice polygamy. So is this delusionary stereotyping? No, it’s stating facts.

You can 'choose' to believe that it makes sense that God allows the prophet to intermix his own opinion with the mind of the LORD while addressing the body of the church, in the name of Jesus Christ, while functioning in his role as prophet, while expecting members to be able to use the same spirit of discernment that failed the prophet in the first place.

Again, what could Wade possibly object to here? This has been the crux of this entire thread. Believers have argued that God will allow the prophets to intermix his own personal opinion in with the teachings that actually reflect the “mind of the Lord”, but members are expected to use the HG to discern the difference, although the HG did not help the prophet discern the difference.

You can 'choose' to believe that God thought prompting Brigham Young to NOT teach Adam/God would constitute God being "over-protective" and "holding our hands". You can 'choose' to believe that the Holy Ghost refused to prompt past prophets to NOT teach racist, obnoxious things about African-Americans because to do so would be to be "over-protective" and "holding our hands"... but you have to 'choose' to believe that this same God who abhors being over-protective and holding our hands still inspired the prophet to tell members how many earrings to wear.

Now, perhaps Wade is one of those believers who denies that BY taught the “Adam-God” theory, but the evidence would be against him. Bruce R.McConkie admitted that BY did teach Adam-God. The past prophets DID teach obnoxious, racist things about African-Americans. Defenders of the faith insist that this was just a reflection of their culture, but that doesn’t alter the fact of the matter. They taught horrible, racist things, and God did not prompt them not to do so. Yet God apparently has instructed the prophet in regards to the acceptable number of earrings.

Now this statement of mine is clearly mocking:

It's easy, Scottie. You can choose to believe. Just close your eyes tight and repeat "I DO believe in spooks, I do, I do, I do, I DO believe in spooks"... whoops, substitute LDS church for spooks, and you'll have it. And don't forget to ignore the man behind the curtain. It will also help to turn off the rational part of your mind while contemplating these things.

But I wasn’t putting words in Wade’s mouth. I was summing up the situation as I see it. It’s not delusionary stereotyping to find believing that Joseph Smith could see buried treasure with a peepstone patently ridiculous, and requiring a short-circuit of the rational part of one’s mind to believe it.

In case you have any doubt this will work, just ask Wayne Bent's followers, who also 'choose' to believe that God ordered Wayne to 'marry' his son's, and another man's wife, and God ordered Wayne to lay naked with underage girls.

I encourage Wade, and everyone else, to watch the documentary that dble linked. You will see believers defend Bent’s behavior. In fact, I believe that believers would feel very comfortable using Wade’s exact words. I can imagine one of them saying these words, in response to someone who asked “do you really believe that God would command his messenger to lay naked with underage girls?”

You are asking the wrong question--a question that nit-picks in a way that misses my point, thus confirming it. The question that those who have an accurate grasp of the intents and purpose of the gospel may well ask is: "Will laying naked with the embodiment of God help enable me to become the very best person possible (like Christ) and increase my chances for attaining a fulness of joy and love one with another?".

Those who fail to get this, are vulnerable to loss of faith (as repeatedly confirmed by many of the former believers on this board), while those who do get it, are positioned for spiritual success. The choice is yours.

It is striking how Bent and his followers insist that Bent did not seek out or desire sexual relationships with the women he "married", including his son's wife. God forced him to do it. The husband of the other wife that Bent took as his "wife" explained that Bent was actually on his, the husband's, side- that Bent didn't agree with God, either. But God commanded it, so Bent obeyed.

Sound familiar?

[_beastie]

I watched the Bent documentary, although it was the same one I’d seen previously. Dble mentioned not understanding how Bent’s followers continued to believe despite his failed prophecy. The answer is in one word – apologia. Apologia is what allowed them to continue believing. One of the commentators said this:

It’s one of the curious aspects of this that leaders will make prophecies and the prophecies don’t materialize, and the followers, for the most part, stay. Rather than give up their belief, to go with reality, they’ll somehow shift their view of reality to match their belief.

I think this statement applies to much of apologia – it’s a way of shifting the view of reality to match belief. So what if the Book of Abraham scrolls don’t match the Book of Abraham? Apologia allows believers to shift their view of reality – there are scrolls missing, or it was some other process that didn’t rely on the scrolls for direct translation. So what if there is no evidence of the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica? Apologia allows believers to shift their view of reality –by reinterpreting the Book of Mormon and insisting one can find Mesoamerica in the Book of Mormon, instead. So what if Joseph Smith married other mens’ wives? Apologia allows believers to shift their view of what “marriage” meant. And so it goes. Preserving the belief overrides the need for belief to correlate with reality, when reality can be altered to fit belief instead.

I’ve long thought about why some people can continue to believe, despite knowing all the warts, while others lose faith. I think one possible explanation is that some people are simply not able to consider that their beliefs may be wrong. Some folks have explained this through the investment paradigm, but I think it’s more complex than that. I recently read a book that suggested a genetic component to the ability to truly consider that one may be wrong about deeply held beliefs. If one cannot even consider that possibility, then any shifting of the view of reality is reasonable and acceptable.

When I was a believer, I believed very intensely. I had a powerful “testimony” – a powerful event that most other LDS I knew had never experienced. I didn’t have to try and convince myself that God had answered my prayer about the Book of Mormon, because He so clearly did. Others I knew had to talk themselves into with things like “I feel the Spirit when I’m at church”. And yet, despite that powerful experience, for some reason I could always “step outside of myself”, so to speak. I had a couple of memorable events like that on my mission. One occurred when I had been out about three months, so was still not fully fluent in French, although I spoke it fairly well by that point. My senior, though, was a French native, so she naturally “took over” our discussions entirely. Perhaps this made it easier for me to “watch” as an observer. She loved to “bash” with Jehovah Witnesses, because she had converted one earlier on her mission. So, despite the fact that our president had cautioned us about wasting our time Bible bashing with JWs, she would take every opportunity to do so. I remember watching her bash with a JW one time, and suddenly getting the sensation that she and the JW were mirror images of one another. It was very unsettling. The second event happened later, when I was more fluent and a senior, myself. I had a long discussion with an atheist, and I remember clearly thinking, by the time we left, that the atheist’s argument was actually better than my own. Neither of these events resulted in a loss of faith, but I do think they both indicated my ability to “step outside” my own fervent beliefs, even just for a moment, and look at them from the outside. Perhaps I was able to do that because I hadn’t grown up in the church, and was a convert at the age of 19. Or perhaps it was due to my strong background in theatre, and how easily I could “assume” another life on stage, and feel it almost as deeply as my own (maybe indicating stronger than average mirror neurons.) I don’t know why I could always do this. I don’t think it has to do with intelligence or honesty, and maybe it is genetic, like introversion or extroversion. But, for whatever reason, it does appear that some people have great difficulty stepping outside their own skins, even for just a few moments, and viewing their beliefs from the outside. I suspect those type of folks are very comfortable shifting reality to match their beliefs – and, of course, don’t even realize that they’ve done so.

[_wenglund]

No. We are your intellectual inferiors, Wade. Haven't you noticed by now?

I think you are confusing evasiveness with low intellect. I have noticed the former, not the later--though I will take your word for it. ;)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_beastie]

I think you are confusing evasiveness with low intellect. I have noticed the former, not the later--though I will take your word for it. ;)

You don't even read your own posts, do you? I can't count how many times you've found ways to tell me I'm your intellectual inferior.

[_wenglund]

I think you are confusing evasiveness with low intellect. I have noticed the former, not the later--though I will take your word for it. ;)

You don't even read your own posts, do you? I can't count how many times you've found ways to tell me I'm your intellectual inferior.

I think you are confusing what I have actually said with the straw man in your closed mind that you use to conveniently put words into my mouth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Some Schmo]

I think you are confusing what I have actually said with the straw man in your closed mind that you use to conveniently put words into my mouth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's as if nobody on the board (well, critics anyway) understands English except Wade. Hell, nobody understands anything except Wade, apparently.

[_beastie]

Wade, denying he’s ever told me I am not intelligent:

I think you are confusing what I have actually said with the straw man in your closed mind that you use to conveniently put words into my mouth.

Wade, earlier on this very thread, in direct response to me asking for an example of “nit-picking”

The intelligent reader will obviously know that the quoted portion of my posts are what I am responding to and are what is relevant to what I say, and not some statement(s) that just happen to have been posted right before mine that I didn't have in mind. You, of course, were expected to jump to the kind of false conclusion that you just did. Such is your chosen nature.

Wade, let me, probably vainly, help you understand how this post of yours reads. Since I, apparently erroneously, believed that your reply was at least partly connected to the example I had offered on this thread – the only example up to that point, by the way – I was not the “intelligent reader”, and that was my “chosen nature”. In other words, my “chosen nature” is not “intelligent”.

I think this little exchange explains quite a bit about the nature of interacting with Wade. I have no idea why this is so, but I do know that Wade seems oblivious to how his own posts “read”. Combine this with his frequent refusal to defend his assertions other than with a statement that others do not understand him due to their questionable intelligence, fundamentalism, the new favorite “closed-mind”, or lack of spiritual development, and you have the sum of the state of affairs in Wade-world.

[_harmony]

Wade-world.

Population: 1.

[_beastie]

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

I have to say; and I admit it is very bizarre, but this Mr. Englund is one of the most... Strange persons I have ever witnessed post on the Internet. I am not sure if it is clear to others, but this individual is clearly Homosexual and at odds with his own state.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me