Peterson the historical skeptic

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Marcus
God
Posts: 5037
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Peterson the historical skeptic

Post by Marcus »

consiglieri wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:42 am
MG 2.0 wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:33 am


You’re not very interesting. Or engaging.

Regards,
MG
Totally picking up a DCP vibe here.
And he regularly (and blindly) introduces ideas from current DCP blog entries. A disciple, at the very least.
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 1602
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:40 pm

Re: Peterson the historical skeptic

Post by Dr Exiled »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:29 am
Dr Exiled wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:22 am
The guy claimed God spoke to him through an ordinary rock, the same rock he used to pull his buried treasure confidence games. That is a tough fact to overcome. I think that is where the story should have ended.
Just out of interest, if God spoke to you back in the early eighteen hundreds and you had little or no experience with ‘god’, how would you expect he may have communicated with you? And if he were to have you write a book, what do you see as being the process…ways and means…by which he would have done so.

Serious question.

Regards,
MG
I think God would have done the direct route and appeared, speaking what he wanted to say in clear and concise language. I also don't think he would have had me write a book to publish His words. He would probably dictate or write the book himself and then hand it over to me, commanding me to spread the word.

However, I think the better course would be to have God appear to many throughout all of the world, not just one person, giving his book to everyone, telling them the same message so as to avoid confusion.

This brings up another problem I see with the Mormon story. The God of Mormonism is a lousy communicator. The Book of Mormon and d&c have gone through many revisions, some pretty important. His only communicating through thoughts to Joseph Smith, created confusion as to what God really wanted to say. Oliver Cowdery and Joseph Smith and others had disputes over what God actually said. This is why at some point, Joseph Smith revealed that God would speak only through him. Why didn't God speak up and clear up the confusion by personal visits to his flock from time to time? Why Joseph Smith over others? Why one leader instead of a group or no leader, just God giving commands or advice from time to time and then letting the people live their lives?
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Peterson the historical skeptic

Post by MG 2.0 »

consiglieri wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:42 am
MG 2.0 wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:33 am


You’re not very interesting. Or engaging.

Regards,
MG
Totally picking up a DCP vibe here.
Hey RFM, have you done a podcast dealing with the topic I’ve interjected on this thread? I would be interested in listening to your responses to the questions and tentative conclusions I’ve proposed throughout this thread.

If you haven’t, I think it might make for an interesting show.

Also, did you listen to John and Zilpha Larsen back in the day? Did you have hopes of having the same/similar success he did? Have your hopes/expectations been met?

Anyway, thanks for dropping in and making a comment. I’m honored. 🙂

Regards,
MG
Marcus
God
Posts: 5037
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Peterson the historical skeptic

Post by Marcus »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:42 am
Marcus wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:37 am


: D You're a very weird dude. Keep your "expectations" to yourself.
Generally speaking, I do. I’ve always lived according to the idea/rule of having low expectations, that way I’m never disappointed. 😂😁

Regards,
MG
Um...KEEP doesn't mean LOW, dude. And you mold every opinion you have to fit whatever thread you are trolling, so please don't pretend you now have standards. :roll:
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Peterson the historical skeptic

Post by MG 2.0 »

Marcus wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:45 am
consiglieri wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:42 am


Totally picking up a DCP vibe here.
And he regularly (and blindly) introduces ideas from current DCP blog entries. A disciple, at the very least.
Huh? I very rarely read the DCP blog. Unless someone here links to it. Then I may. More often not.

Regards,
MG
Marcus
God
Posts: 5037
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2021 10:44 pm

Re: Peterson the historical skeptic

Post by Marcus »

canpakes wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:19 pm
OK. You ask that one should consider, “why he did what he did. Or at least try and make some sense out of what the facts at our disposal seem to point to.

You’ve provided the Joseph Knight situation to help the reader process this question… which, basically, can be distilled down to this:

Smith: I have golden plates that I’m going to translate into a new record of Christ in America!

Knight: Astounding! Here, let me help take care of you while you do some translating. I’ll give you free provisions, room and board, foodstuffs, transportation and other aid so that you can spend time simply doing what you want to do with those plates that you won’t let me see!

Smith: Sweet! :: high fives all around ::

… Did I miss anything?

You’re asking me to consider how hard this was for Joseph - to be taken care of in this manner - as opposed to being, say, a farmer working his fields to provide for his family?

What conclusion do you believe that most folks draw from this?

What an elaborate scheme!

Rather, it’s not elaborate. It’s pretty simple: ‘I have a golden book. I’m going to translate it. You’re not allowed to see it. I’ll tell you when I’m done. Oh, and I need some paper; can you bring me some? And some dinner rolls?’

Joseph and Emma having to move to protect the plates. Joseph leaving a sick wife to check on the status of the manuscript. The Knight family stepping up to help with the necessities requires during the early translation period. We can keep going…
If you wish.

And all of this coming out of the experience of a young farmboy who was seeking truth from his maker in regards to his acceptance/forgiveness of the Lord in regards to his sins. I asked malkie when he thought Joseph turned to the ‘dark side’ and came up with the elaborate scheme of writing a book such as he did. Malkie said, First Vision. But that doesn’t hold water. After the vision one would think that Joseph would want to seek the Lord’s will, then do it.

By all accounts SOMETHING happened in the grove when Joseph went to pray. It changed his life trajectory.
The whole ‘transition to the dark side’ thing is your own invention. Clearly, Smith had been telling stories as a child at the dinner table that he further fleshed out years later into the characters and storyline of the Book. Or was Mom just lying about that?

What if Joseph went into the grove, napped, and dreamt the events of the FV? Does that make him evil? Does it mean that he can’t imagine that he saw something? How would that be any different than some of the witnesses talking about how they saw the plates with their spiritual eyes?

The power of suggestion is pretty strong, and history is filled with folks who are convinced that they’ve had long conversations with their God.

There is just TOO much going on during Joseph’s early life that would give one pause at pointing fingers at him and calling him a fraud.
This statement doesn’t make much sense, considering that he and his family were treasure seers/seekers, and dabbled into what we would refer to as the occult, etc.

Sure, he and his family were treasure seers/seekers. Yes, they dabbled into what we would refer to as the occult. I would suggest that some here go back and read Bushman’s book again, or for the first time, to get a well laid out picture of what was going on at the time rather than relying on short little pieces of poop put out there by folks such as Doc and his oh so cute small letter big letter creations of silliness.
I’m not seeing a good case here for why Joseph couldn’t have an excellent imagination, and a strong desire to concoct a record that he would claim to be genuine, even if he didn’t have grand plans to do much of anything with it after the fact.

Rather, I do see some excellent reasons as to why he ‘went there’, and I sure don’t see that being taken care of by trusting friends while doing so was soooo hard for him, as opposed to daily manual labor in the fields.

You can even extrapolate that out to consider that he might have figured this path would also help him take care of Emma, if you want to keep telling me how much he loved her.

In any event, Smith ‘figured things out’ early. ; )
Excellent assessment.
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Peterson the historical skeptic

Post by MG 2.0 »

Dr Exiled wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:49 am
MG 2.0 wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:29 am


Just out of interest, if God spoke to you back in the early eighteen hundreds and you had little or no experience with ‘god’, how would you expect he may have communicated with you? And if he were to have you write a book, what do you see as being the process…ways and means…by which he would have done so.

Serious question.

Regards,
MG
I think God would have done the direct route and appeared, speaking what he wanted to say in clear and concise language.
How would you have gotten others to believe you if you were the only one or one of very few that He appeared to?

What would you have done if others weren’t on board with you?

Regards,
MG
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Peterson the historical skeptic

Post by MG 2.0 »

Marcus wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:51 am
…don't pretend you now have standards.
I have personal standards, but I’m not surprised when they are not followed by others. Like I said, low expectations usually don’t result in disappointment.

You’ve never been a disappointment.

My expectations have not increased by any measure in regards to your contributions, etc. 😉

Regards,
MG
MG 2.0
God
Posts: 3628
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:45 pm

Re: Peterson the historical skeptic

Post by MG 2.0 »

Marcus wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:53 am
Excellent assessment.
Do you think canpakes may have left anything out, as she asked?

Regards,
MG
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8981
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: Peterson the historical skeptic

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

MG 2.0 wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 1:13 am
Marcus wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 12:53 am
Excellent assessment.
Do you think canpakes may have left anything out, as she asked?

Regards,
MG
Yet another example of the complete and utter lack of situational awareness by a troll who just pops in to drop a testimonkey because he has such an oPeN mInD.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Post Reply