Page 14 of 28

Re: Holland talks about the essays and historical questions

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:27 pm
by _Lolitsme
Everyone interpreting will try and get the right interpretation.

No I disagree, as do you.

Since everyone thinks they are truth seekers, how do you determine who is not really a truth seeker? How do you know you are not just believing what you desire to? You after all are the one who has to give meaning/interpretation to your spiritual experiences.

Actually I don't think everyone is a truth seeker, nor do they think they are. I have known many people who have never seriously considered any religion other than Mormonism, and if you asked and observed them you would find out that they really don't care, they just like Mormon culture and the Church. Others I have seen switch from Mormonism to other religions, and others I have seen switch the other way. I would also point out that in my experience, there are a priori aspects to the Holy Ghost. Not everything is about interpretation.

As for what my criteria are for what makes a good meaning or interpretation? If it bears out with experiment. If as I listen to it, and understand it in a specific way it leads to me truth, happiness, or another thing then that is how I interpret it. There are different kinds of experiences and really understanding the Holy Ghost is somewhat like understanding a cryptic language we know little about. I remember talking with my Stake President once. He said that one of the things he learned as Stake President was when God was telling him to call someone to a calling because they needed to fess up for something or because they were really the best for the calling. This was not a priori, but learned by watching patterns in how he felt and the outcomes of following his promptings. I keep a journal about my experiences. I've found this practice is very helpful. I have also prayed on many occasions, sincerely about other religions. I have had enough exposure to them that I really do love other religions and could see myself in them. Pope Francis is one of my heroes for example, and I've come to love Islam very deeply. I agree that these are imperfect methods of finding truth and I continue to discover more about the Holy Ghost and God, but no method is perfect. I'm assuming you are a fellow agnostic? Though apparently not an agnostic theist like myself.

Don't blame me, you are the one who defined faith as having to hope for something that is true. :wink:

I am unsure how my definition makes my use a misuse of the word? If I become convinced that something else is true then I will believe or hope for it to be so.

Sincerely, Lolitsme

Re: Holland talks about the essays and historical questions

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:35 pm
by _canpakes
mentalgymnast wrote:
canpakes wrote:1.why do you accept their veracity as God-given truths, as opposed to possibly being nothing other than Joseph's creation?


I don't. I've mentioned a number of times on this board...maybe previous to your engagement...that I look at the truth claims of Mormonism with open eyes and with the viewpoint of looking at things as either being possible/plausible/probable. And look at things accordingly. I've not thrown out the possibility that Joseph's "creations" are not also a composite and/or a reconstruction/redesign of existing 'truths' that were already in 'the mix' of human knowledge/understanding.

If Joseph's creations are a composite of some 'truths' along with something other than that (for whatever reason) then how responsible is the average man to discern the difference given that the self-claimed prophet could not?

When this rule is applied to odd specifics like handshakes (taken from Masonic ritual, more or less, and unexplained as to why the Masons would have obtained such knowledge anyway, since this particular and presently-regarded-as-sacred ritual would presumably require more of a prerequisite to be doled out than merely having a particular craftsman skill), it would seem sensible that peculiar details like these are not what the larger message of Christ was, nor included in any recorded doctrine that defines or explains salvation and its requirements.



mentalgymnast wrote:
canpakes wrote:2. why believe Joseph over any number of religious leaders who would not agree that being married in a temple and deploying secret handshakes is the only way to get into Heaven?


At this point, and for a while now, my answer is in the fact that the Book of Mormon has yet to be explained away with finality. Yes, there are issues and problems that I am well aware of...but I'm not convinced that these issues and problems are 'deal breakers' although they are troublesome...I admit. New Testament in the Book of Mormon? What gives? Etc. But I've also tried to remain balanced in regards to those things that, for me, seem to point towards the Book of Mormon being something more than just...and only... a nineteenth century production. And there are some beautiful sections in the D&C that I've often asked myself "could these have had as their sole source, the mind of a man?" And I've remained open to the plausibility/possibility that they could be God inspired. Now...probable?...not sure on that one at times.

My question actually concerns the Church more than the Book of Mormon, since one could easily separate the two. I don't see anything about the LDS Church today that is uniquely and specifically introduced by the Book of Mormon. Today's Church practices and structure - to the extent that separates it from vanilla Christianity - seems to be predicated completely and only on D&C and various Church president/prophet decisions.

Although it would be an unusual position to take, could you hold a belief in the Book of Mormon (as an actual 'translated record') without believing that any of the Church hierarchy from Smith to the present day were capable of introducing any 'new' truths outside of it (as 'revelation')? Even if you accept the content within the Book of Mormon that conveniently sets up a Joseph as a future prophet/translator of itself, where did the Book of Mormon claim that this future Joseph would also be introducing new doctrine to go along with it, as opposed to merely translating the existing record?

Re: Holland talks about the essays and historical questions

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 6:48 pm
by _Zub Zool oan
Lolitsme wrote: Sure it might have been important that Joseph Smith know the truth so he could restore such ordinances eventually, and provide a place for whom Mormonism is where we learn and progress best, but I do not think we can say what was important for God to show Joseph Smith is important for us.


Except what then is "The" truth. It sounds like the big meaning for many believers comes down to finding exactly the correct combination of things to believe so as to be in the tiny group that gets it all. I mean God, in his infinite wisdom, has presided over a testing situation where there are perhaps thirty thousand Christianities, not to mention all of the non-Christian religions. It is overkill like nothing else one can find and you could spend a hundred lifetimes and still not have the time to give each one a fair shake. Many are similar, but doesn't Satan work in subtleties? God, in his infinite wisdom understands how much we are governed by the influence of families and cultural patterns that saying an individual, straight off, all things equal, just responds to the message and if they are righteous will find "the truth" may be a bit naïve.

When the universe was tiny before Hubble and knowledge developed about many galaxies and the immensity of the universe, belief was one thing. It was just the ancients, twinkly lights on crystal spheres and curious moving lights. An anthropomorphic God was reachable. But now with even say the energy in just one thunderstorm being controlled by a man sized exalted being gets very much harder to buy into, much less light traveling at 186, 000 miles per second and it taking near 14 billion years to get to the edge that we can see. It may be farther with a next generation of instruments. Also, a data base that can carry on instantaneous telepathic communication with 7 billion humans at once if necessary can't be detected? That amount of data, like the Book of Mormon peoples leaves no trace - not even pollen? The Saints, being the most righteous people on earth - remember they are the only ones with a permit to be in God's Temple aren't conspicuous in any statistic, in fact getting outdone by other groups, who, coincidently when measured for things like healthy habits (Word of Wisdom) line up with what science has shown rather than a higher pay back for obedience.

If the spirit really is there, why isn't it's manifestation different to Mormons, rather than lining up with every cultural expectation of the person making the claim within the culture he/she comes from. You have to accept they are valid experiences and God just tricks some people - most - like God bet with Satan about Job and his success or failure.

I left Mormonism because the church grants itself so many do-overs. Read, for example what, exactly Joseph Smith said about what he was doing with the scrolls for the Book of Abraham. I want to see the revelation where God told a later prophet before something became a problem that the scrolls were just memory triggering something God revealed. Why all the business about taking apart Egyptian writing and laying out a book to assist in understanding it when God knew it was all wrong. Why do current apologists claim some victory when they conflate maybe one element in the illustration in the beginning of the Book of Abraham and say Joseph got a bullseye but rest is gibberish and non-sense? Why does the modern church get to explain that horse=tapir, club=sword and so on. All the time and visions God spent schooling Joseph on this ancient civilization and yet he can't tell us what cureloms and cumoms were. That rather than turkeys and sweet potatoes, they were engaged in the exact kind and type of agriculture that was around where Joseph grew up. Joseph, according to the church, saw God and Christ and tried to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon? That Smith sent men on missions and married their wives behind their backs. The church has tried to disregard the Temple Lot case and witnesses or just dismiss them. Is this because they are women and don't count? Why would Joseph promise a whole family salvation for marriage to their teenaged daughter-Joseph could even interrupt the sacrifice of Christ?

This is just a small set of problems that Mormonism asks us to accept from the all knowing creator of the universe and expect after giving us the intelligence to use our minds to disregard everything and just believe. Children devoured by 2 bears for ridicule of an aging balding prophet, keeping the young nubile women to rape after destroying men, women and children, even farm animals? Stopping the sun? If you say that some of these things are figurative, then which ones and how do we know the difference? The prophet? Could he maybe tell us of something in advance rather than after the fact?

Re: Holland talks about the essays and historical questions

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:29 pm
by _Lolitsme
Except what then is "The" truth

Something elusive and extremely hard to grasp. Something I doubt I have more than a dime of, but something I hope I can learn more of in the eternities beyond. You want certainty. You want all the answers, but some things are not simple to understand, some things we have to spend well over a lifetime learning.

God, in his infinite wisdom understands how much we are governed by the influence of families and cultural patterns that saying an individual, straight off, all things equal

I suppose your proposing God lies? It cannot be disproved, I agree that far.

It is overkill like nothing else one can find and you could spend a hundred lifetimes and still not have the time to give each one a fair shake.

Default position is disbelief. I only have to show there is evidence for one, not that there is no evidence for others. Also, many disbelieve in things like spirits.

Many are similar, but doesn't Satan work in subtleties?

I have trouble believing that all religious groups except one have been possessed by Satan. Don't we judge by fruits? That doesn't seem consistent with Mormonism, nor quite frankly many, if not most protestant groups and modern Catholicism.

just responds to the message and if they are righteous will find "the truth" may be a bit naïve.


I never said that. I've continually made it clear that nothing is simple. Science is not simple, so why should God be any simpler, in fact shouldn't he be more complex and therefore so much more interesting?

in fact getting outdone by other groups, who, coincidently when measured for things like healthy habits (Word of Wisdom) line up with what science has shown rather than a higher pay back for obedience.
I have no idea where you're coming from with this. Mormons live on average much longer lives than non-Mormons. Other groups follow similar words on Wisdom and they naturally live similarly long life spans. There was a great TED talk about longevity. I'll look for it and see if I can find it. Yes there are groups that live longer, but that is because they live much different lives from Americans. As far as functioning in American society and longevity we do pretty well.

If the spirit really is there, why isn't it's manifestation different to Mormons, rather than lining up with every cultural expectation of the person making the claim within the culture he/she comes from.

The sense of the Holy Ghost is pretty much the same across religious groups. I'm going to find that Time article I read and post it in the next post. I've also had a lot of experience with evangelical groups. Our experiences are extremely similar. Another thing i'll post is about the third man phenomenon. Next post. I don't see how similarity detracts from anything. It just shows we are sensing things from the same source.

You have to accept they are valid experiences and God just tricks some people - most - like God bet with Satan about Job and his success or failure.
No I don't as I've said before, and I don't take them that way.

I'll just address a few of your objections to Mormonism from reason. It would take a long time to go over all of them and would be off the topic of these series of posts. I also doubt it will do any good, and I have addressed the religion v. science conflict in a previous post.

Loan Shifting: In a true translation Joseph would have translated loan shifted words as what appear to be anachronistic words. I've read many accounts from the early Spanish conquistadors. They all saw "pigs" and "horses." Really this is basic science, and I've always had trouble understanding objections to it, but maybe I just don't have enough empathy.

Joseph, according to the church, saw God and Christ and tried to sell the copyright to the Book of Mormon?
I'm not very familiar with this issue, but I'd imagine it was during the Kirtland period when they were struggling to prevent bankruptcy and to build a temple at the same time? I've never really been that impressed with the idea that Joseph was motivated for money. He lived a pretty meager life, worked days while being a prophet, though later he had to be in his prophet's role full time, and was constantly persecuted. If I was a fraud, I would have given up after Kirtland. Just saying.

Is this because they are women and don't count?
Early Mormonism in particular was extremely suffragette-ish, and it remained so in large part up til Ezra Taft Benson, who changed Mormon culture quite a bit, and Joseph Smith was more feminist than the vast majority of people at the time. Just to give you one example. I have a great-great-great grandmother who gave what appears to be a priesthood blessing. We have this recorded in my family. I'm not sure the case is closed about whether women actually had the priesthood at one point. But I don't think, priesthood or not, Mormon theology discounts the importance of women. Many religions preach that woman is naturally evil, that there is a wickedness in it. Mormonism does no such thing. Yes it often times moves slowly. Part of the problem of having old men is that their biases get in the way from their world view, and you have to watch out for this. But having old men is the best way to get spiritual experts as I mentioned earlier.

Just a few things to think about, Lolitsme.

Re: Holland talks about the essays and historical questions

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:31 pm
by _grindael
Lolitsme wrote:
Prophetic infallibility (doctrinal infallibility) has ALWAYS been the essence of Mormon Doctrine. It is only Mormon apologists that deny this.


Really? Because I can pull out several quotes from Joseph Smith, having just read his Journals about this. There are quotes (like in the Polygamy manifesto for instance) which preach that Prophets or the majority in the twelve, etc, are infallible. If they are infallible though, infallible prophets led me astray in believing they were fallible as I read their writings; therefore, they are fallible. Here's one such quote:

"If we are faithful in all things, for we are even entitled to greater blessings than they were, because the[y] had the person of Christ with them, to instruct them in the great plan of salvation, his personal presence we have not, therefore we need great faith on account of our peculiar circumstances and I am determined to do all that I can to uphold you, although I may do many things <invertaintly [inadvertently]> that are not right in the sight of God; you want to know many things that are before you, that you may know how how to prepare your selves for the great things that God is about to bring to pass" Joseph Smith's 1835-1836 Journal, Pg. 31-32, November 12, 1835

Sorry, the reply on prophetic fallibility may have come across a little strong. I am sincerely trying to be respectful and I do respect your views.


That's only one quote, and you have taken it out of context. Smith claimed precisely,

When did I ever teach anything wrong from this stand? When was I ever confounded? I want to triumph in Israel before I depart hence and am no more seen. I never told you I was perfect; (addressing your quote) but there are NO ERRORS in the revelations which I have taught." (addressing his doctrinal infallibility). Must I, then, be thrown away as a thing of naught? I enjoin for your consideration—add to your faith virtue, love, &c. I say, in the name of the Lord, if these things are in you, you shall be [p.367] fruitful. I testify that no man has power to reveal it but myself—things in heaven, in earth and hell; and all shut your mouths for the future. (Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 6, p.367).

Unless you can answer this satisfactorily, your premise will always be flawed. I have literally dozens of quotes to back up what I say. How many do you have? I'm curious.

Re: Holland talks about the essays and historical questions

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:34 pm
by _Lolitsme

Re: Holland talks about the essays and historical questions

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 7:54 pm
by _Lolitsme
I did not take it out of context. Read the context of the quote.

I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.
Emphasis added.

When God speaks to the people, he does it in a manner to suit their circumstances and capacities. He spoke to the children of Jacob through Moses, as a blind, stiff-necked people, and when Jesus and his Apostles came they talked with the Jews as a benighted, wicked, selfish people. They would not receive the Gospel, though presented to them by the Son of God in all its righteousness, beauty and glory. Should the Lord Almighty send an angel to re-write the Bible, it would in many places be very different from what it now is. And I will even venture to say that if the Book of Mormon were now to be re-written, in many instances it would materially differ from the present translation. According as people are willing to receive the things of God, so the heavens send forth their blessings. If the people are stiff-necked, the Lord can tell them but little.
Journal of Discourses 9:311, July 13, 1862. This ones from Brigham Young another infallible prophet that has the power to set Mormon doctrine apparently.

And now if there be fault, it be the mistake of men: wherefore condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment seat of Christ.
1830 Book of Mormon title page

I have my failings and passions to contend with the same as has the greatest
stranger to God. I am tempted the same as you are, my brethren. I am not
infallible. All men are subject to their passions and sinful natures. There is a
constant warfare between the two natures of man.
This is from a paper by Brian C. Hales. I will make it known that I have not fact checked this quote, so it may be taken out of context or false. Could anyone confirm this?

Also did Joseph Smith not go back with the approval of the Church to correct his own errors in translating the Book of Mormon according to the spirit? He did. I'd also note that Richard Bushmen doesn't seem to have too much trouble believing prophets fallible. Appeal to authority I know, but still.

So Joseph Smith obviously led me astray into believing he was fallible; therefore, he can't be infallible, even if he claimed to be at one point as he was going through an arrogant phase or something. I think my argument makes your quotes invalid :) In our recent General Conference we had much the same too. I forget who's talk it was, but someone talked about how hard it was to get all the GA's to agree on anything, and that when they did it was because of the action of the spirit. It seems the unanimity acts as a safeguard against error. It is an imperfect one, but it works pretty well at least when we know that they all agree on those portions, and it is not a generational/cultural thing.

Sincrely, Lolitsme

Re: Holland talks about the essays and historical questions

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:18 pm
by _Tobin
Lolitsme wrote:Tobin: I don't deny that God can appear and show the plates to us. I also don't deny that he has appeared on many occasions since that appearance, which are recorded in journals, D&C revelations, and even in public statements by General Authorities.
Really? Have you ever seen him? How do you know?
Lolitsme wrote:Have you ever wondered about Mckonkies last talk where he says that he would be no more certain if he died and saw God? I have a question too.
Good for him. However, I am not willing to take his word for it. After all, Mckonkie said a lot of things. Some of it was rather vile and offensive.
Lolitsme wrote:Would you honestly believe if God showed you those things?
Yes, because I already have. You really don't know who your talking to. I've seen one of these beings for myself and that is why I don't deny these beings exist. However, it is my view that they are not what you think they are. They are likely advanced life and are not the magical beings you suppose they are.
Lolitsme wrote:Or would you consider yourself now a schizophrenic and go to a psychiatrist.
I would certainly consider that as a possibility as well. That is only rational. But having experienced one of these beings for myself, it is like denying that you've seen the Sun.
Lolitsme wrote:I question your openness and I imagine (though I'm not so arrogant to say that I know) that God does as well.
As I've already said, I don't deny these beings exist since I've seen and spoken with them for myself. Would it surprise you to find out that Mormons are likely mistaken about what they believe these beings are? As I mentioned, they may not necessarily be what you believe they are.
Lolitsme wrote:One first step in receiving revelation, true revelation, not just emotion, which you and many believing Mormons unfortunately get mixed up with is that you must believe it occurs.
No you don't. My experience and if you believe the account of Paul proves that isn't true in the least. I was an ardent atheist when I encountered one of these beings.
Lolitsme wrote:You don't need to believe that the Church is true or anything like that, but that others have had, non emotion spiritual experiences and that you can too. Otherwise, as I pointed to earlier, it may end up not affecting us at all.
You don't have to be spiritually in tune. That is ludicrous. We are talking about actually seeing a divine being. All you have to do really is be awake.
Lolitsme wrote:Your parents or grandparents, the historical record of Mormonism and other faiths are all viable ways to come to believe that real spiritual experiences do occur. One that particularly impressed me were the shared visions in early Mormonism such as in D&C 76 and while the endowment was being given in the Kirtland temple. This is one of the cultural issues I see with Mormonism today. We deny extraordinary witness as insanity and only accept less powerful witnesses and emotions as evidence. This is not really a true Mormon thing to do, and it prevents extraordinary witness. We need both a contrite spirit and belief that we can be answered. It also needs to be the will of God, which I don't think it usually is for the reasons mentioned in the previous post.
No, that isn't the problem really. We are talking about beings that are so far beyond us, that no amount of wishful thinking is going to make them appear. They will reveal themselves IF they choose to. You can't make them appear or wish them to appear through having a contrite spirit or by believing you can be answered.
Lolitsme wrote:Just another reason that I see these experiences being rarer, Sincerely Lolitsme
Actually, the reason these "experiences" are rare is because we aren't ready as a species. We are too primitive, violent, superstitious and unable to deal with the truth about these beings. I think many of the possible recorded encounters with these beings are being distorted by our superstitions and mistaken understanding of these beings.

Re: Holland talks about the essays and historical questions

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:38 pm
by _Themis
Lolitsme wrote:
Everyone interpreting will try and get the right interpretation.

No I disagree, as do you.


Really. I disagree? Even after I just said the opposite? Why would anyone purposely interpret something wrong, and even if they did, wouldn't they know it was the wrong interpretation? Meaning they also have the right interpretation of creating a wrong one.

Actually I don't think everyone is a truth seeker, nor do they think they are. I have known many people who have never seriously considered any religion other than Mormonism, and if you asked and observed them you would find out that they really don't care, they just like Mormon culture and the Church.


Maybe, but then maybe not. Maybe they just don't have the same priority of what is important.

I would also point out that in my experience, there are a priori aspects to the Holy Ghost. Not everything is about interpretation.


Of course it's all about interpretation. You cannot do otherwise with any experience. Even the experience of someone talking to you in your own language has to be interpreted. You cannot give any example that would not require you to interpret. If you think you can go ahead.

As for what my criteria are for what makes a good meaning or interpretation? If it bears out with experiment. If as I listen to it, and understand it in a specific way it leads to me truth, happiness, or another thing then that is how I interpret it.


Happiness is subjective, and depends on feelings. One can get it in many ways. What experiments are you doing to discover more objective truths?

There are different kinds of experiences and really understanding the Holy Ghost is somewhat like understanding a cryptic language we know little about.


You haven't even started by showing how your experiments are coming from some unseen being instead of from yourself or the natural environment. Bias plays a huge role in such highly subjective experiences. Your interpretations also fit with what you have been taught or believe. The same with others who believe very differently.

I remember talking with my Stake President once. He said that one of the things he learned as Stake President was when God was telling him to call someone to a calling because they needed to fess up for something or because they were really the best for the calling. This was not a priori, but learned by watching patterns in how he felt and the outcomes of following his promptings.


It's still interpretations based on his world view. An atheist would likely get similar results but interpret them as intuition and not some guidance from an unseen being. How do you know who is right, instead of who you what you want to believe?

I have also prayed on many occasions, sincerely about other religions. I have had enough exposure to them that I really do love other religions and could see myself in them. Pope Francis is one of my heroes for example, and I've come to love Islam very deeply.


I am sure you have, but you are still interpreting them based on your world view, which would be very different then how a Catholic would.

I agree that these are imperfect methods of finding truth and I continue to discover more about the Holy Ghost and God, but no method is perfect. I'm assuming you are a fellow agnostic? Though apparently not an agnostic theist like myself.


First we have to look at how we know something is coming from an unseen being. It is not just an imperfect system, but terribly flawed and highly subjective. Other methods are much less subjective and you can actually demonstrate reliability. My point would be not to ignore the reliable when it conflicts with the unreliable.

I am unsure how my definition makes my use a misuse of the word? If I become convinced that something else is true then I will believe or hope for it to be so.


I'm just having fun with you. You defined faith that in order for one to have faith in something it had to be true. This would mean if some had belief in Xenu, that belief could only be faith if Xenu actually existed.

Re: Holland talks about the essays and historical questions

Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:51 pm
by _Lolitsme
I have never seen one. I'm just relying on witnesses, including family members.

Yes, because I already have. You really don't know who your talking to. I've seen one of these beings for myself and that is why I don't deny these beings exist. However, it is my view that they are not what you think they are. They are likely advanced life and are not the magical beings you suppose they are.

That is exactly what I think they are. From King Follet discourse, to the Book of Moses and Abraham, to a favorite modern philosopher Nick Bostrom. Religion is couched in terms of well, religion. The terms aren't necessarily the substance though. It is our job to look through the terms in the modern age. I'm a serious Mormon Transhumanist, though I find some of Ray Kurzweil's predictions to have a time span far too short.

Yes, I agree it is an a priori thing.

To the rest of it:
Interesting, the disbelief was my explanation for the dramatic drop in visitations since around the turn of the last century, and it seemed to fit pretty well. I will have to reconsider it, but that is why I decided to participate on this board in the first place.
I'd be interested in where you got your explanation for why we don't see them more often. Did these "beings" as you term them, tell you?
I would also point out, that though I have not had any visitations, my more powerful experiences do seem to follow the contrite spirit and belief pattern, and that in superstitious early Mormonism visitations were extremely common.
As my disregard of the Apostle Paul makes clear I am very suspicious of the Bible's accuracy in portraying historical events.