Robert Ritner's Decimation of Mormon Egyptology

[_Themis]

D'oh.

Here's the Christian extremist Themis again.

So brave. He's so brave.

- Doc

Is there a reason you are such an ass? I was also not aware I was a Christain.

[Guest]

-

[_malkie]

The problem is self-deceit is many times closely related to deceiving others. If a person perpetrates a fraud and then starts believing it and deceiving themselves in the process of doing so to others then they would both be acting fraudulently and potentially believe (to a greater or lesser extent) in the lies themselves. I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive and I think there are a number of factors which contribute to it.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

Well then I think it would be accurate to say they are lying until they have fallen for their own scam. At that point it is not really lying, but just not true. Lying is defined as knowing you are saying something is true when you think it is false. I am open to the idea that Joseph and others may have convinced themselves after the fact. Justification can be very powerful. In the end it is still not true.

Compare that with the advice from a GA:

Where to Start
It is not unusual to have a missionary say, “How can I bear testimony until I get one? How can I testify that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the gospel is true? If I do not have such a testimony, would that not be dishonest?”

Oh, if I could teach you this one principle. A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it! Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that “leap of faith,” as the philosophers call it. It is the moment when you have gone to the edge of the light and stepped into the darkness to discover that the way is lighted ahead for just a footstep or two. “The spirit of man,” is as the scripture says, indeed “is the candle of the Lord.” (Prov. 20:27.)

It is one thing to receive a witness from what you have read or what another has said; and that is a necessary beginning. It is quite another to have the Spirit confirm to you in your bosom that what you have testified is true. Can you not see that it will be supplied as you share it? As you give that which you have, there is a replacement, with increase!

At what point between "If I do not have such a testimony ..." and "have the Spirit confirm to you in your bosom" does confirmation bias overcome your knowledge that you do not know?

[Guest]

-

[_Themis]

At what point between "If I do not have such a testimony ..." and "have the Spirit confirm to you in your bosom" does confirmation bias overcome your knowledge that you do not know?

I don't think I could decide at one point this happens. I think the line may be too fuzzy. :) I think Packer understands this is a process that does work. I remember often trying to get that internal sensation that I could identify as the HG telling me the church is true.

[_sock puppet]

In my view, Joseph Smith is no more or less complicated a personality as any of us. We like to put people into neat categories (charlatan, delusional, pious fraud, and so on) when most people are not that easy to peg.

Yes, including categories like 'believer' and 'critic'. They are useful, they communicate, just like charlatan, delusional and pious fraud do. JSJr was a charlatan. Period. But it is fun to see believers twist reason and logic all out of shape to try and de-label JSJr.

I don't really care what his motivations were. It's enough to know that his claims don't add up and the religion he founded is not God's "true" church.

Yep.

[_sock puppet]

They really believe they get special treatment just because they're a part of a believers community. We're all supposed to walk on eggshells around their religious sensibilities.

If they were not accorded this special treatment, they'd be ridiculed for the ridiculous, evidence-less ideas they espouse.

I agree, they should not get special treatment, but it is only because they do that their silly notions get any audience at all.

[_Kishkumen]

There are plenty of folks who believe the lies they peddle; their sincerity cannot infuse a fraud with credibility. For example, there are plenty of snake-oil merchants who sincerely believe their particular ointment, pill, or elixir can cure cancer, or baldness, or small-penis syndrome. Their earnestness, however, does not alter the fundamental fact that they are perpetrating a fraud on those who accept and rely upon their claims.

There is also such thing as the person who sincerely believes something that is not true and then works to convince others of the truth of that belief. One cannot assume that the process begins with self-deception. It could just as easily begin with genuine belief.

My take on Joseph Smith is that he had a genuine religious experience which he then augmented with a claim to have unearthed gold plates that he had not, in fact, recovered.

[_Chap]

...

My take on Joseph Smith is that he had a genuine religious experience which he then augmented with a claim to have unearthed gold plates that he had not, in fact, recovered.

I'd like to know what characteristics an experience has to have in order for it to count as a 'genuine religious experience'.

To sharpen it up a bit: I am an atheist. I may have some kind of intense experience (could be as a result of seeing something in the external world, or as a result of introspection; yup, I do sometimes have them). I say "Wow! that was an intense experience" and describe it as best I can to a theist. Can the theist reasonably say to me, if the characteristics of what I describe fulfil certain criteria, "Chap, what you just had was a religious experience"? Or does he have to accept that as an atheist, I just can't have 'religious' experiences.

In other words, can only religious believers have religious experiences? (I think that part of the answer is already known: even atheist sufferers from certain kinds of temporal lobe epilepsy do report intense visions of heaven, hell, or of a divine being (which one presumably depending on the culture they know best.)

[_thews]

There is also such thing as the person who sincerely believes something that is not true and then works to convince others of the truth of that belief. One cannot assume that the process begins with self-deception. It could just as easily begin with genuine belief.

My take on Joseph Smith is that he had a genuine religious experience which he then augmented with a claim to have unearthed gold plates that he had not, in fact, recovered.

Does this mean you place faith in Joseph Smith's truth claims?