Joseph Smith believed all sects were false

[_marg]

No, I am afraid you are wrong here. I have seen no comparison with Marg at MAD. In fact, most LDS would have been suspended for harassment on MAD if they behaved as consistently as marg has.

Excuse me...you are the one harassing me. I don't remember one post you've written to me that isn't ad hominem. I just responded to you in Scratch's thread and it was one ad hominem after another. So let's be honest here and get the facts straight. I haven't harassed anyone...but you most certainly have been harassing me in your posts.

Edit: It was in Sethbags thread.

She needs to loosen up because when she makes a personal comment about a poster's style, she seems to sidetrack the thread and it becomes derailed. Just let it fly by is my motto.

Excuse me again...I made no personal comment about a person's style. I was also attempting to keep the thread focussed. Just about every professed Mormon in this thread has attempted to derail it.

I'm going to be honest here and it's not going to be nice. The worst impression from the Net that I have of Mormons overall is that they are NOT honest people. It seems to me to be an over-riding trait that I see time and again. There are a few who I think are honest but the overwhelming majority I find to be dishonest. What you posted above is just another example. I don't expect you to see it. Now it may be that you don't attend church and so you may not consider yourself Mormon..but I'm talking about those who have been Mormon and who defend it on the Net.

[_Jersey Girl]

Wading back in here to offer something in the area of self honesty that I hope will be of use to at least some.

One of the comments that marg made that Jason "saw" as emotional was the following:

But it appears given posts in this thread by Mormons they are unable to tolerate criticisms of Smith and so they resort to posts such as ad hominem, testimony bearing, irrelevant off topic posts and even harrassment.

I don't think it's unusual. It's typical behavior of well indoctrinated members of cults.

On this thread there is evidence of ad hom, testimony bearing and irrelevant off topic posts. I am uncertain about what marg felt was harrassment. The words that I bolded are what I feel provokes emotion on the part of a believer, be they LDS or mainstream Christian. If the following makes any sense at all , I'll have done alright by this.

No one wants to hear that they are or were indoctrinated in a religious context. We think our beliefs are true and honest and deny any sort of indoctrination process has taken place. If we are to be self honest, we need to look back to our beginnings as a child being raised up in our particular religious environment.

Were LDS not taught to "Follow the Prophet" from a very young age? Was I not, in a similar fashion taught that "Jesus loves me" because "the Bible tells me so"? Of course I was. From a very early age, I was taught that the Bible contained whatever answers I needed in all sorts of situations. I still think it does contain the wisdom that I appreciate. I memorized Bible verses for Sunday School, won "Sword Drills" and "Memory Verse" contests as a kid which is why I can still access scripture by memory today.

Were LDS not taught that the Prophet was led by God and would guide their lives by continuing revelation? In the same way, I was taught to reference the Bible and access God via prayer in order to guide my own life.

Were LDS not taught to bring others into the church? To go on a mission? Was I not taught to be "Fishers of Men"? This is being written by someone who used to put tracts on the chairs in school as a kid, folks.

Were LDS not taught to bear their testimony at a very early age by witnessing the bearing of such by others in their church and based on the responses of affirmation did that not send a message to you that once you were able to bear your testimony of the church you would have "arrived" as a Saint? In the same way, I watched baptism after baptism, watched people respond to the alter call..and watched the happiness of others to those events. Did that not send a message to me that once I had accepted Christ as my personal Savior that I would have "arrived" as a Christian?

And what supplies the greatest risk to a believer folks? Most of us would answer the temptation of Satan to sin. Without God, you are nothing. You are the in the hands of "the adversary", you have infact become an enemy of God at that point and adverse to all that is Holy.

When I first encountered skeptics on the Net, I was appalled by some of the things they would say about the Bible, about God or about me personally. I really quite honestly thought most of them were "mad at God" until I realized they held no belief in God at all. Prior to that, I couldn't have imagined it. They would ask me what I thought about a certain thing or how I knew a certain thing and I would respond with Bible verses. Just as I was taught to do. Just as LDS are taught to bear their testimony. Eventually, I figured out that they were asking me to assess and articulate my beliefs when previously I had been essentially using the Bible to prove the Bible and using the Bible to prove God...because the Bible told me so. I gave myself up to endless debate and discussion, thought provoking and I learned to think more carefully, learned to question and that's not a bad thing. I learned to allow someone to engage me in thinking, I learned to like it and it forever changed the way I think. One might say I was indoctinated to active thinking or formal operations. ;-)

It wasn't until I arrived on ZLMB that I saw myself in the posts of others. What I used to call the "bumper sticker" replies, the canned recitation of religious platitudes and scripture answers to everything I asked. It drove me nuts!

Yes, we are indoctrinated and I don't that is such a negative thing to be however, when someone like marg is asking you to supply on point responses and cut the chatter, it's not because she is driven by "the adversary" going to hell in a hand basket, it's not because she hates God, or because she hates you or thinks she's "better" than you. She recognizes the response of the person who has been indoctrinated and sees that as irrelevant to the topic and issues she has raised.

She is looking for answers and information.

When I look at her participation in the Spalding/Rigdon thread, I am simply amazed at the time and effort she has invested in research so that she can be a functional contributor to that thread.

What she's doing here, folks, is essentially asking you to be a functional contributor to this thread.

Okay, whether or not this makes sense, it's going up. And marg, feel free to beat me with that pole for adding more clutter to your thread!

Jersey Girl
;-)

[_marg]

Hi Jersey Girl,

More than the original topic being of interest I find people's responses in this thread more interesting. I certainly do not mind threads veering off in different directions. But if I'm going to respond to someone who has quoted me in their response, I have expectations from them of what I expect in their response. And if those expectations aren't met I will either say something or ignore the person.

As you point out, for example often times a religious individual will quote from the Bible as if that is "reason giving" and the matter under consideration is settled. Well it's only over if the other person accepts the Bible as authoritative. And of course the skeptic's argument is that there is no reason to accept the Bible as authoritative. It's a collection of man written books. So people if they are going to communicate to a mutual understanding have to begin at a point of agreement. An agreement over concepts, words, propositions, what the issues are under consideration are and then work from there. The discussion/argument to be fruitful has to progress back and forth with communication in which each party offers rational reasons and evidence absent fallacies which supports their position. A critical thinker should be able to objectively contemplate the argument presented and acknowledge if not openly...at least to themselves that the other person might be right or have a good point. That's an ideal.

I often bring up critical thinking and employ it as a concept which I have an understanding of. People tend to leap to a conclusion I'm talking about myself. I'm not. A good critical thinker ..is an ideal concept. Yes some people might almost be at that ideal concept as critical thinkers. Perhaps not in all areas of their lives or at all times. Oftentimes though we do recognize good critical thinkers in discussions and one way of recognizing who isn't are those who resort to frequent fallacious ad hominem. Critical thinking is a complex concept which fills whole books.


Now I do realize I oftentimes post confrontationally. I did that recently with DV. He essentially put up a challenge when he said "I'm not a typical TBM.".and I thought I'd challenge him on that. How he chose to interpret may have differed from my intent. But I was not attempting to be disrespectful. Another point is that when it comes to Mormonism I don't have emotional ties to words. TBM, testimony, cult, polygamy, no words are sacred to me either. I do appreciate that many Mormons do have emotional ties to these words and read more into them than someone outside of Mormonism might.

I did deliberately provoke with my sentence "It's typical behavior of well indoctrinated members of cults." I wasn't trying to be disrespectful, but I was aware it was provocative. However I think the responses in this thread warranted the provocation. The responses seemed to me to be a function of the sort of indoctrination which one finds in cults in which members have difficulty rationally and objectively hearing a different perspective than taught or promoted or perceived of their leader or idol. So I do provoke and I'm not concerned with whether people like it, or like me.

by the way...in my initial post I am serious. I do believe J. Smith was likely a deist or atheist. It is something I truly believe. If people find that upsetting that is their choice. Atheist and deist are not derogatory words.

What I meant by harassment is an individual who persistently I don't mean occasionally posts ad hominem with the intention of trying to irritate and be disruptive.

[_desert_vulture]

I disengaged from our last conversation because you blatantly exaggerated many points, confused the issues, and basically degraded the entire dialogue into an emotional diatribe of convoluted concepts. At that point I disengaged by stating to you "Whatever" because I realized that no matter how many points I made, and no matter how I treated you, you would dig in your heals and choose to reinforce your own confirmation bias, rather than engage in mutual dialogue.

whatever

Classic response. I am beginning to enjoy you.

DV, sometimes on MB's people can anger me but rarely does that happen. I was angry at liz's post. No one else angered me in this thread. Bourne I pretty much dismiss, his comments mean virtually nothing to me. Most of my exchanges with people tend to be honest, non emotional, unfriendly for a reason. I don't post to make friends. I want to be able to be as objective and honest as possible. I only have respect for people who are honest and (self) intellectually honest. I will not post on any message board which has biased moderating such that people can not be honest for fear of interference by a mod. At the same time, I do my best to be respectful and not resort to ad hominem fallacies.

I am beginning to understand you. It helps to understand another's motives and beliefs when discussing important topics such as Joseph Smith' claim to authority from God. I tend to think that neither of us can be pigeon-holed easily into some of the mainstream LDS labels, such as "apostate" or "TBM." That doesn't really matter, but it helps me conceptualize you so that we can actually communicate effectively. I see that you are here to be internally consistent, straightforward, and completely intellectually honest with others and yourself. I applaud that type of approach. I, on the other hand, approach message board discussions from a much more casual angle, I like to play devil's advocate, I like to jest, and I really enjoy pointing out inaccuracies and/or flawed methodology. That is why I am intrigued by the apologetics regarding Book of Abraham. There is a seemingly endless list of flawed thinking passed off as intelligent analysis. It boggles the mind. Yet, I see entertainment value in reading such thinking, and find myself bursting out laughing when reading most apologetic information. I am here as much for the entertainment value, as I am for the intellectual stimulation. Therefore, our approaches to discussion board participation are largely distinct, however I am drawn to anyone, and everyone, who thinks critically and is honest about their thinking. I am sorry that we didn't get off to a better start, and I just wanted to say that I do admire your approach. I don't really care if you think I am a TBM or not, it doesn't really matter. I would classify myself as TBM on the outside, and apostate on the inside. In other words, a NOM. I go because of family and business connections. I understand that many people see participating apostates as being intellectually dishonest, but I maintain that my family relationships are more important to me than maintaining visible intellectual honesty, for the current time. I am in a position where things are changing for the better. I enjoy talking about Joseph Smith, because he is the deal-breaker for mo-ism. That's why I like discussing topics that revolve around Joseph Smith' authority, or perceived authority, and just how far it extended, or how far he claimed that it extended. I am a believer in a higher intelligence. I do not want to engage in a philosophical discussion concerning the existence of deity. It would be fruitless, as that topic has been debated for centuries. I would hope that my belief in Deity would not preclude us from having productive conversations in the future. Many of my friends are atheists or agnostic, and many times I have agnostic tendencies myself. But then again, I don't really know how to classify myself, as I do attend church regularly, but personally disagree with much of the doctrine being taught. It is a tough row to hoe sometimes.

I appreciate that you answered me honestly and completely, and I hope that our future conversations will be positive and productive. There are not many posters like you, who value intellectual honesty above human kinship, and it is an intriguing trait that I hope to learn more about. Thanks for helping me to understand more about you. I will try to be less offensive to you, and others in the future. By the way, my blow-up post with all the swearing, wasn't my first post here. I have been hanging around for a few months, spend most of my time on NOM and FLAK, but enjoy this group of people too and try to make time for a variety of discussion boards. I haven't been banned from MAD, but I only go there rarely anymore since it spun off of FAIR. I was queued at BCC though after only my second post, so maybe that counts for something. ;)

-DV

[_marg]

I am beginning to understand you. It helps to understand another's motives and beliefs when discussing important topics such as Joseph Smith' claim to authority from God. I tend to think that neither of us can be pigeon-holed easily into some of the mainstream LDS labels, such as "apostate" or "TBM."

Well I certainly couldn't be pigeon holed into an LDS label. If you are interested in how I think...I don't find "TBM" an offensive concept. And how I use it, is in relation mainly to how an individual thinks. Now a TBM is an extremely devoted follower. The church teaches to accept on faith. So a TBM is not a critical thinker when it comes to their religion. So if you argue from an irrational perspective..i.e. use God to justify..then I will view that as a TBM perspective. At this point I don't remember what you presented other than it had to do with polygamy.

That doesn't really matter, but it helps me conceptualize you so that we can actually communicate effectively. I see that you are here to be internally consistent, straightforward, and completely intellectually honest with others and yourself. I applaud that type of approach. I, on the other hand, approach message board discussions from a much more casual angle, I like to play devil's advocate, I like to jest, and I really enjoy pointing out inaccuracies and/or flawed methodology. That is why I am intrigued by the apologetics regarding Book of Abraham. There is a seemingly endless list of flawed thinking passed off as intelligent analysis. It boggles the mind. Yet, I see entertainment value in reading such thinking, and find myself bursting out laughing when reading most apologetic information.

I don't read much apologetic material. When I do I see the flaws in the reasoning. I don't find it entertaining I find it annoying. Especially if I think there is disingenous game playing going on. That I've seen with the arguments countering DNA.

I am here as much for the entertainment value, as I am for the intellectual stimulation. Therefore, our approaches to discussion board participation are largely distinct, however I am drawn to anyone, and everyone, who thinks critically and is honest about their thinking.

I don't consider myself a good critical thinker. I've explained why in the past. I do have a few strong points when it comes to religion. I tend to be able to see flaws in logic of arguments, to see fallacies and I tend to be able to be objective.

I am sorry that we didn't get off to a better start, and I just wanted to say that I do admire your approach. I don't really care if you think I am a TBM or not, it doesn't really matter. I would classify myself as TBM on the outside, and apostate on the inside. In other words, a NOM.

Just so you know I'm not critical of TBM who know no differently, who think as a function of their indoctrination. I might argue with them to attempt to get them to think or reevaluate. For example oftentimes a religious individual will comment indicating they think they are morally superior as a function of their beliefs..I might challenge that.

I go because of family and business connections. I understand that many people see participating apostates as being intellectually dishonest, but I maintain that my family relationships are more important to me than maintaining visible intellectual honesty, for the current time.

Everyone has to make choices. Sometimes people do have to compromise their personal integrity. And that's okay if the marginal benefits in continuuing to do so exceed the marginal costs. The ideal is to live life with personal integrity in tact, but we can't always have the ideal.

I am in a position where things are changing for the better. I enjoy talking about Joseph Smith, because he is the deal-breaker for mo-ism. That's why I like discussing topics that revolve around Joseph Smith' authority, or perceived authority, and just how far it extended, or how far he claimed that it extended. I am a believer in a higher intelligence. I do not want to engage in a philosophical discussion concerning the existence of deity. It would be fruitless, as that topic has been debated for centuries. I would hope that my belief in Deity would not preclude us from having productive conversations in the future.

DV I probably won't be spending much time on this board. I took a current interest in the Rigdon-Spalding theory because I think that theory makes the most sense and Dan said he would discuss it. I also have lots of time at the moment because my husband is away until mid next week. Generally I'm not very interested in the discussion on this board. I rarely if ever read the Mad board, I occasionally read the RFM board. So I may or may not post on here. My main interest on here is not Mormonism..it's critical thinking. And understanding why people think as they do when it comes to religious beliefs.

Many of my friends are atheists or agnostic, and many times I have agnostic tendencies myself. But then again, I don't really know how to classify myself, as I do attend church regularly, but personally disagree with much of the doctrine being taught. It is a tough row to hoe sometimes.

You mistook my comment re TBM as an attack...it was a challenge. It was meant to be a good thing ..not bad. I see lots of potential in you as far as a becoming an excellent critical thinker. What you have to be able to do is let the evidence lead you, be honest about the evidence. Don't try to deny or make excuses. Just let the evidence do the talking.

I appreciate that you answered me honestly and completely, and I hope that our future conversations will be positive and productive. There are not many posters like you, who value intellectual honesty above human kinship, and it is an intriguing trait that I hope to learn more about.

Communication on a message can be quite different than with friends and family.

Thanks for helping me to understand more about you. I will try to be less offensive to you, and others in the future.

You were never offensive to me from what I can remember.

By the way, my blow-up post with all the swearing, wasn't my first post here. I have been hanging around for a few months, spend most of my time on NOM and FLAK, but enjoy this group of people too and try to make time for a variety of discussion boards. I haven't been banned from MAD, but I only go there rarely anymore since it spun off of FAIR. I was queued at BCC though after only my second post, so maybe that counts for something. ;)

I spent 2 months on FAIR as "religiously free" and was harassed by the mods. At which point I left. The only person's posts that interest me on that board is Dale Broadhurst. If ever I read threads, I see a lot of anger, dishonesty, an inability to appreciate what is ethically right from wrong...and a lot of very poor reasoning. Hence I don't read there often..as it's annoying to me.

[_why me]

You mistook my comment re TBM as an attack...it was a challenge. It was meant to be a good thing ..not bad. I see lots of potential in you as far as a becoming an excellent critical thinker.

This is amazing. Marg sees potential in someone becoming a critical thinker and yet, she is so locked into her own train of thought, that critical thinking must be denied. Do you actually believe what you are writing? I find it difficult to believe. Reading your posts marg, I am discovering someone who writes more like a hubot than a human being who sees the world through a critical lens. You are truly amazing, somewhat borgish in style. I have seen more critical thinking from TBMs on message boards than from your own posts....posts that seem to be locked into anti-mormon diatribes and as someone also noticed, without human emotion.

A critical thinker marg is first a human being, someone who has understanding of human nature and can probe such nature in questioning ways that ignite dialogue, and not diatribes against another's belief system. Please read up on critical thinking and see what exactly it needs. I can recommend a book for you: Paulo Freire: Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

It is an amazing book and the book can give some insight in how to have a dialogue with a human being and how to treat people as subjects in the conversation process and not as objects. For a critical thinker treates people as subjects and he or she learns not just to read the word, but also to read the world. And this is the key marg: to read the world. Such is another aspect of critical thinking.

[_Jason Bourne]

So Jersey Girl, you really think this:

But it appears given posts in this thread by Mormons they are unable to tolerate criticisms of Smith and so they resort to posts such as ad hominem, testimony bearing, irrelevant off topic posts and even harrassment.

I don't think it's unusual. It's typical behavior of well indoctrinated members of cults.

...is not emotional?

I guess we will have to disagree. It is both emotional and ad hominem.

Okay...I'm going to be perfectly blunt and if you dislike profanity stop reading this right now.

<
<
<
<
<
<
<
<
Still here? Okay, as one who once referred to marg as a heartless bitch and who thinks she could extract the pole out of her ass and lighten up a bit and who also knows she doesn't give a damn about what I think any more than I do her, I pose the following questions to you:

On this thread:

1. Where is the first indication of ad hom?
2. Who responded by bearing their testimony?
3. Who posted the first off topic response?
4. Where is the first indication of harrassment?

Do I need to read this thread and find those incidents myself?

Jason, I know just exactly what marg is looking for in a topical discussion/debate because we originally come from the same posting background. On LDS boards, when I've gone into debate mode and try to pull a poster or thread back onto topic, I get the same exact reaction that she is getting here.

Jersey Girl

Jersey Girl,

I am not about to pick the whole thread apart. It is not worth the time, it is not that important to me. What others did I do not a care. But quickly, I think Gramps75 bore his testimony and marg pounced. I did not bear any testimony but I did toss out the first ad hominem when I said marg was a bore. So what? She tossed out ad hominem out after that. If she is against ad hominem then don't do them. If you condemnd someone for doing so then do it back in the same thread it makes you look foolish. That is what marg did.

Actually though, now I think about it, marg tosses out a ad hominem all the time, and one could argue she was first when she implied to me when I asked what she had read by Smith if I was not able to think critically. This is her favorite comment.

Anyway, whatever. If you disagree with that what I gave was ad hominem on marg's part we will have to disagree.

[_marg]

You mistook my comment re TBM as an attack...it was a challenge. It was meant to be a good thing ..not bad. I see lots of potential in you as far as a becoming an excellent critical thinker.

This is amazing. Marg sees potential in someone becoming a critical thinker and yet, she is so locked into her own train of thought, that critical thinking must be denied. Do you actually believe what you are writing? I find it difficult to believe. Reading your posts marg, I am discovering someone who writes more like a hubot than a human being who sees the world through a critical lens. You are truly amazing, somewhat borgish in style. I have seen more critical thinking from TBMs on message boards than from your own posts....posts that seem to be locked into anti-mormon diatribes and as someone also noticed, without human emotion.

You know why me, it's turning into harassment. Your whole focus every time you post to me..is personal attack. In a way I'm glad I offend you because it's an indication to me I'm probably doing something right..given the sorts of posts I see from you. I don't think you have a clue what critical thinking is. You certainly don't demonstrate it.

A critical thinker marg is first a human being, someone who has understanding of human nature and can probe such nature in questioning ways that ignite dialogue, and not diatribes against another's belief system. Please read up on critical thinking and see what exactly it needs. I can recommend a book for you: Paulo Freire: Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

Once in a while Why Me ..this might be a foreign concept to you, but quote what I say and address my actual words. Quit making inferences of what I say and instead back up your complaints with what I do say. Your approach is typical of what I've seen on FAIR....the approach is always attack the critic, attack the messenger..just keep attacking, attacking, attacking. You just don't seem to get it, that this is the opposite of good critical thinking. What you do is the simplest form of thinking possible. It is very easy to create strawmen to attack. Quote what I say and attack that. I don't mind being attack as long as it is relevant to what I do say.

It is an amazing book and the book can give some insight in how to have a dialogue with a human being and how to treat people as subjects in the conversation process and not as objects. For a critical thinker treates people as subjects and he or she learns not just to read the word, but also to read the world. And this is the key marg: to read the world. Such is another aspect of critical thinking.

Again, why me, my advice...quit the lazy thinking of resorting to personal attacks, quote what it is you don't like about what someone says and address that. So for example for the above, back up with a quote from me to illustrate how it is relevant to what you are saying. Because all it looks like to me right now, is you attacking a strawman.

[_marg]

I am not about to pick the whole thread apart. It is not worth the time, it is not that important to me. What others did I do not a care. But quickly, I think Gramps75 bore his testimony and marg pounced.

Pounced? quite a few posts were written even by me before I mentioned anything. I didn't respond to grampa75 for a while. And when I did, I made a request..there's no pouncing going on. There is though an apparent over reaction in this thread to a request from me for Grampa75 to not bear is testimony in reply to me. Sorry to break it to you guys but “testimonies” are not sacred to everyone.

I did not bear any testimony but I did toss out the first ad hominem when I said marg was a bore. So what? She tossed out ad hominem out after that. If she is against ad hominem then don't do them. If you condemnd someone for doing so then do it back in the same thread it makes you look foolish. That is what marg did.

It's precious how you think "so what"...you called someone a bore and then expect them to treat you with respect in return and even continue on a discussion with you. I’m quite aware of the tactics employed by FAIR which is generally to attack the person instead of the argument..attack their education level, attack their reading..that they just haven’t read enough or the right books, attack their knowledge, attack that they aren’t Mormon and so have no right to comment. Etc. It was obvious to me Jason where you were going. I was quite willing to deal with substance, for example I was quite willing to discuss absurdities in the Book of Mormon but you didn’t want to go there…what you wanted to do was attack me. And I wasn’t going to play your disingenuous game. When you resorted to obnoxious derogatory comments, you lost all rights to be treated with respect. I didn’t resort to your level but I chose to ignore you.

Actually though, now I think about it, marg tosses out a ad hominem all the time, and one could argue she was first when she implied to me when I asked what she had read by Smith if I was not able to think critically. This is her favorite comment.

It is not fallacious to criticize someone in which one explains/gives reasoning and it’s justified and on topic.

[_Jason Bourne]

I haven’t been reading Jason’s posts. What I have read appear to me to be intentionally disrespectful and disruptive. I’ve chosen to ignore him. In my view he's immature, and not worth putting in any effort communicating with him. Good moderation would get rid of his disruptive type posts. But I’m not demanding that. This thread isn’t that important to me, if it was then I’d make that demand. But for this thread…I’ll let his words be a reflection of the person he is. His words are not a relection of me, so it doesn't concern me what he says.

I admitted ad hominem, I tried to move past it, I asked you to do the same and then posted what I thought was a good argument against your premise and you choose not to interact but rather implied that me and anyone part of a cult is dysfunctional in their ability to critically think.

So here is my proposal. Let's do a start over. I would like to discuss this with you fairly and rationally. I apologize ofr the negative I have contriuteed on this thread. If you are willing please go back and respond to the posting where a revelation Smith wrote threatend to condemn him and take away his gift. I think this disputes the theory you started this thread with.

Thanks