Mormon REVERENCE FOR JOSEPH SMITH

[_Jersey Girl]

[quote="The Nehor]This has degenerated into a "You are indoctrinated and know less than you think" countered by denials. You think your religion of rationality makes you better able to discern what in the past influenced me than I am who actually lived it. I think that assumption is arrogant and wrong. You know virtually nothing about me.[/quote]

Nehor,

JAK doesn't need to know anything about you to see evidence that you are not serious in responding to his points. Your are wasting the time of one whose teaching ability would hold great value to you were you at all interested in learning.

You are missing an opportunity at no cost to you, for which others pay much for. How well, I know.

Having said that, please tell me, were you BIC? If not, what was your religious upbringing prior to your joining the church as a convert?

Jersey Girl

[_The Nehor]

Nehor,

All I know is what I read in your posts. I address verbatim your comments and generally reproduce exactly your words prior to a response.

Thus far, you have evaded direct response to my analysis. Given your comments, I have concluded that you are a believer in Mormon religious claims. You have said nothing to indicate otherwise. If that is correct, I know something about your views.

My responses to you have been detailed and specific regarding your comments.

In a bb such as this, I know of no better way to respond directly to what someone has stated.

I invite you to quote me as I have quoted you, line by line, and respond to the specifics of what I have said just as I have responded to the specifics you have said.

I'm skeptical that you are equipped to do that.

JAK

If telling me I'm wrong and deceived on every point is a response to the specifics than I don't see the use of it.

You're right, I'm not equipped to respond point by point to everything you say. I lack the primary ingredient, time.

Let me clarify some of the my posts above as I believe I was confusing. What I meant (outside of my post intended to be humorous) is that my conversion does not come exclusively or even mostly from what I was taught. The day I found out the truth started with me more inclined to become an agnostic than a true LDS believer. I believe God speaks to me. I also believe that the person most qualified to make any judgment regarding that statement is me as well. Your argument that my 'god claims' are false is based on the idea that the extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. I have had that evidence. I can't communicate it to you. Any attempt to do so would not come across. Unless you've had such experiences they seem silly. While one might not be able to describe being in the presence of God I have found no earthly substitute for what happened and no non-religious experience has ever come near it. Furthermore I can see no evolutionary reason to have such experiences. The logical conclusion would be that I'm insane except that I've talked to others who've had experiences that while not similar at least have the same character.

Again, I know the history of the Reformation and the changes in religion. On a side-note my views on religion are not incredibly different from my great-great grandfather or one of his wives based on their journals that I have read.

If you're not willing to accept that the account of Jesus in the Gospels is accurate can you at least admit that if that Jesus theoretically were real that he's either what he claimed to be or totally and completely mad?

My conversion now is irrelevant and subjective while a broad-based liberal education will make me open-minded and objective? Not buying it. God has taught me more about being open-minded than any of my college professors.

I disagree with your claim that religion evolves over time. I could just as easily state that the principles of rationality and logic have evolved over time and continue to do so. This would make both of our claims using rationality as extremely suspect. Furthermore in reading history I rarely find real evolution in thought. Historians love to claim that this person influenced this person and this other one influenced that one. It's a game. Rarely do we sit down and think they might actually have something profound to say to us that is not predicated on what came before.

[_JAK]

If telling me I'm wrong and deceived on every point is a response to the specifics than I don't see the use of it.

You're right, I'm not equipped to respond point by point to everything you say. I lack the primary ingredient, time.

Let me clarify some of the my posts above as I believe I was confusing. What I meant (outside of my post intended to be humorous) is that my conversion does not come exclusively or even mostly from what I was taught. The day I found out the truth started with me more inclined to become an agnostic than a true LDS believer. I believe God speaks to me. I also believe that the person most qualified to make any judgment regarding that statement is me as well. Your argument that my 'god claims' are false is based on the idea that the extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. I have had that evidence. I can't communicate it to you. Any attempt to do so would not come across. Unless you've had such experiences they seem silly. While one might not be able to describe being in the presence of God I have found no earthly substitute for what happened and no non-religious experience has ever come near it. Furthermore I can see no evolutionary reason to have such experiences. The logical conclusion would be that I'm insane except that I've talked to others who've had experiences that while not similar at least have the same character.

Again, I know the history of the Reformation and the changes in religion. On a side-note my views on religion are not incredibly different from my great-great grandfather or one of his wives based on their journals that I have read.

If you're not willing to accept that the account of Jesus in the Gospels is accurate can you at least admit that if that Jesus theoretically were real that he's either what he claimed to be or totally and completely mad?

My conversion now is irrelevant and subjective while a broad-based liberal education will make me open-minded and objective? Not buying it. God has taught me more about being open-minded than any of my college professors.

I disagree with your claim that religion evolves over time. I could just as easily state that the principles of rationality and logic have evolved over time and continue to do so. This would make both of our claims using rationality as extremely suspect. Furthermore in reading history I rarely find real evolution in thought. Historians love to claim that this person influenced this person and this other one influenced that one. It's a game. Rarely do we sit down and think they might actually have something profound to say to us that is not predicated on what came before.

-------------------------------------------------------
NEW

Nehor,

Why are you unwilling to quote me directly as I have quoted you and respond to what I stated? You have made no refutation for the principle truth by assertion is unreliable.

The evidence for that is in the multiplicity of assertions made for religious claims. They disagree. You have not addressed that. I presume you cannot.

Absence of agreement by religious myth-makers is evidence that their assertions are unreliable. You have not offered any refutation.

Nehor states:
The day I found out the truth started with me more inclined to become an agnostic than a true LDS believer.

Hence, you claim to know “the truth”. But others also claim to have “found out the truth,” and THEIR “truth” is different from YOUR truth. Since you avoid specifics, you hide from inquiry. It’s disingenuous.

Nehor states:
I believe God speaks to me.

This is a restatement of your previously stated claim. I have addressed and you have been unresponsive.

How do you know? I have previously asked numerous questions you didn’t address.

What evidence for all to see and explore can you offer?

Do you think God speaks to Muslims?

Do you think God speaks to others who hear a very different message than what you claim to hear?

Nehor states:
I also believe that the person most qualified to make any judgment regarding that statement is me as well.

Is a math student most qualified to judge his own competence in math?

Is a sick person most qualified to judge his illness or prescribe medical treatment?

Only by wearing blinders, can one make such a declaration. You illustrate arrogance and pretension. You substitute those for honesty in response. Of course it’s an easy way out for you.

You are best qualified to evaluate you. It’s an irrational position, Nehor. It’s bluster and braggadocio.

Nehor states:
Your argument that my 'god claims' are false is based on the idea that the extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.

Review my posts. You’re inaccurate. I asked you to present evidence for your God claims. You have not done that. Each response to that has been more assertion by you, not evidence for the God claims.

Nehor states:
Your argument that my 'god claims' are false is based on the idea that the extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. I have had that evidence.

Show us the evidence. The claim is extraordinary. You have presented no evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence.

Nehor states:
Your argument that my 'god claims' are false is based on the idea that the extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. I have had that evidence. I can't communicate it to you.

Think about why you are unable to communicate it. You make claim, then you dodge/evade responsibility to support the claim. Absent evidence for a claim the claim should be disregarded.

You fail to meet any burden of proof for your claim.

Nehor states:
Any attempt to do so would not come across. Unless you've had such experiences they seem silly.

Why would it seem silly? Why would it not come across? You appear to be hiding causal link(s). Why are you hiding?
Could it be that at your most honest, you recognize what others more objective than you would recognize?

Nehor states:
While one might not be able to describe being in the presence of God I have found no earthly substitute for what happened and no non-religious experience has ever come near it.

People often do not recognize their own emotions and emotional reactions. Although emotional reactions may be difficult for the one emotionally involved to relate, that fact does not mean such emotional responses are not explainable. “Presence of God” is a phrase chock-full of emotion. An individual is not the one best qualified to bring rational thinking to his own emotional feelings/experiences.

Even though you argued you were the one best qualified..., the argument is flawed. You’re not best qualified to evaluate your subjective reaction(s) to any emotion-filled experience. That you believe it is an inaccurate, mistaken conclusion.

Nehor states:
While one might not be able to describe being in the presence of God I have found no earthly substitute for what happened and no non-religious experience has ever come near it. Furthermore I can see no evolutionary reason to have such experiences.

Continuing to keep your comments in context, the admission that you don’t understand is evidence that you are not best equipped to evaluate. Since you continue to hide the “what happened,” you are being disingenuous here. But you are hiding.

Even though you might not comprehend or be able to clarify, that by no means suggests that what YOU can’t explain, some more objective observer might. But given your obfuscation, I strongly suspect you would fear exposing your experience. You prefer to keep the blinders on and avoid analysis of objective observation.

You can do that. Religious believers tend to conceal their God box from honest intellectual inquiry. Honest inquiry would likely threaten what’s in the God box. Religious, irrational beliefs tend to be secretive and protective of incoherent, mindless, and nonsensical perceptions.

Nehor states:
The logical conclusion would be that I'm insane except that I've talked to others who've had experiences that while not similar at least have the same character.

Not necessarily “insane” as you state. You remain secretive deliberately. I strongly suspect it’s because your rational thinking tells you something different from your emotions. There is no question that emotional experiences of different people can have parallels. However, that does not warrant leaps to irrational conclusions which must be hidden to be protected from academic inquiry.

Nehor states:
Again, I know the history of the Reformation and the changes in religion. On a side-note my views on religion are not incredibly different from my great-great grandfather or one of his wives based on their journals that I have read.

You are using the straw man argument, Nehor. What I stated was that your views are likely not the same as those of your great, great grandparents. We cannot interview them (I assume they have died). But it would be most unlikely that their freely expressed ideas in their prime of health would be like yours today. So, you mis-represent my statement, and by use of not “incredibly different” which was not my statement. In addition, your statement implies your great, great grandfather was a polygamist. If he was, are you, or do you intend to have multiple wives?

Nehor states:
If you're not willing to accept that the account of Jesus in the Gospels is accurate can you at least admit that if that Jesus theoretically were real that he's either what he claimed to be or totally and completely mad?

There is contradiction even in the biblical accounts regarding Jesus.

See the following:

Biblical Contradictions

“Jesus Lied About Prayer
Jesus is quoted many times in the Bible saying that a believer can ask for anything through prayer and receive it. He even goes so far as to say that mountains and trees can be thrown into the sea simply by praying for it. This is clearly a lie.” (From source above)

Gospel Contradictions

Scroll down to read: “The Historicity of Jesus, and the Lack of a Case Thereof”

Many sources are available which set forward the historical flaws and contradictions in the Gospel accounts. You will not find them in doctrinal religious writings. But, they do exist in academic analysis not confined to some God box of religious dogma.

There are other options than only two which you state. It’s a false choice.

[color=#3CB371]Nehor states:
My conversion now is irrelevant and subjective while a broad-based liberal education will make me open-minded and objective? Not buying it. God has taught me more about being open-minded than any of my college professors.

Well, many would prefer to remain ignorant rather than to expose their unreasoned religious myths. And it’s virtually impossible for one to be educated against his will to remain ignorant. By hiding and evading honest dialogue, you appear to prefer ignorance over information.

You fail to establish your God claim. No evidence has been offered by you. You have shown evidence that you make up religion to suit yourself. But that’s hardly unique. I am skeptical that you have had “college professors” from accredited universities free of religious bias. God myths indoctrinate rather than educate. That is the case as God myths begin by making unsupported claims. Second, they build other myths on top of the previous ones. The result is unreliable conclusion.

What “college” did you attend?
Did you graduate?
What was your major?

Nehor states:
I disagree with your claim that religion evolves over time.


You’re misinformed. Historical evidence is abundant which demonstrates that evolution of religious perspectives is abundant. Such evidence is also abundant to demonstrate the evolution of civilizations and cultures. Religion was a part of many cultures and civilizations. It evolved along with the culture/civilization. Your disagreement has no factual support, Nehor.

Think of the history of the United States. The US has become whatever it is over several hundred years. It has changed. It has evolved. With that change has come different perspectives, laws, revision of laws -- change.

You’re disagreeing with established fact. Your religion is a product of religion’s evolution as is any religion. Some research on your part regarding when, where, and how various religious groups developed/emerged/evolved could be in your répertoire. You won’t find it by sitting in your room alone. You won’t find it if you don’t investigate.

Have you read any of the following:

Critiques of God Edited by Peter A. Angeles ?
Ethics without God by Kai Nielsen ?
On the Genealogy of Morals by Friedrich Nietzsche ?
Does God Exist?: The Debate Between Theists and Atheists by J. P. Moreland and Kai Nielsen PB ?
On the Gods: and Other Essays by Robert Ingersoll ?
Superstition by Dr. Felix E. Planer ?

Religions along with their cultures/civilizations evolved over time. The historicity of this is well documented. Disbelieving that is akin to disbelieving the earth is a sphere.

Nehor states:
I could just as easily state that the principles of rationality and logic have evolved over time and continue to do so. This would make both of our claims using rationality as extremely suspect.

By accident, you are coming close to an accurate statement. However, it’s not the “principles” which have evolved but human understanding of the principles which were a matter of fact. It was over time tens of thousands of years that humans discovered germs. But there were germs.

It is also close to accurate that principles of rational, logical understanding of our environment were discovered over time. i.e. Gravity was a fact and the principles of gravity were present before the discovery human intellect came to present day understanding of those principles.

Nehor states:
Furthermore in reading history I rarely find real evolution in thought.


A broad and generalized statement. What history are you reading? In the 1920s women gained the right to vote. Prior to that, women were not permitted to vote. The evolution in thought was from one view of women and their place to another view of women and their place. Today, in the US, we have at least one woman running for President. In less than 100 years the thought about women has evolved.

Are you even aware that women could not vote?

“The first unrestricted women's suffrage in terms of voting rights (women were not initially permitted to stand for election) in a self-governing country was granted in New Zealand. Following a movement led by Kate Sheppard, the women's suffrage bill was adopted mere weeks before the general election of 1893.”

“American women were pioneers in the women's suffrage cause, advocating votes for women from the 1820s. Some early victories were had in the territories of Wyoming (1869) and Utah (1870), although Utah women were disenfranchised by the U.S. Congress in 1887. The push to grant Utah women's suffrage was at least partially fueled by outsiders' belief that, given the right to vote, Utah women would get rid of polygamy. It was only after Utah women exercised their suffrage rights in favor of polygamy that the U.S. Congress disenfranchised Utah women.[2] Other territories and states granted women the right to vote in the late 19th and early 20th century, but women were not allowed to vote in federal elections until 1920, when the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed. Yet, black women remained disenfranchised in the South until the 1960s. Today the Center for American Women in Politics keeps alive the push for more women to continue to participate in the government.”

Nehor, when you state that you know all about something, you should understand our suspicion about that claim. You demonstrate yourself to be most ignorant.

Nehor stated:
Historians love to claim that this person influenced this person and this other one influenced that one. It's a game.

An assertion you are most unqualified to make considering your ignorance about history and evolution of cultures and civilizations.

With the inventions of the printing press, cameras (still pictures), motion pictures, television, and video and audio recordings (today) there is a great and sincere interest in history. In addition, we have tools today for documentation which were non-existent merely 200 years ago. I must say your stupidity is overwhelming, Nehor.

Nehor stated:
Rarely do we sit down and think they might actually have something profound to say to us that is not predicated on what came before.

That’s wrong as well. Intellectually honest historians -- those who are dedicated to factual accuracy often reveal “something profound” which is clearly “predicated on what came before.”

Now, Nehor, I suspect our discussions are likely at an end. I find you disingenuous and great ignorance. You seem quite determined to remain ignorant as you post in unresponsive ways to analysis.

I previously suggested that you take in context from my comments directly to you quote me directly and accurately and ask questions or address with honesty what, in fact, I stated.

You have not done that. I find it an unlikely prospect. Nevertheless, I am open assuming I can find a post you make to me. It’s difficult to find posts on this forum and easy to miss what someone may have addressed.

JAK

[_The Nehor]

Now, Nehor, I suspect our discussions are likely at an end. I find you disingenuous and great ignorance. You seem quite determined to remain ignorant as you post in unresponsive ways to analysis.

I previously suggested that you take in context from my comments directly to you quote me directly and accurately and ask questions or address with honesty what, in fact, I stated.

You have not done that. I find it an unlikely prospect. Nevertheless, I am open assuming I can find a post you make to me. It’s difficult to find posts on this forum and easy to miss what someone may have addressed.

JAK

I'm sorry you find me great ignorance.

I think we're speaking two different languages here. You keep assuming that I'm trying to prove something. I'm not. You've taken it upon yourself to try to educate me on something I once believed and then discarded. I do not hold human reason, objective review, and material proof as highly as you do.

The differences between me and others who claim to have found God I do not presume to address. I know nothing about their experiences just as you know nothing of mine. Without real information judgment is impossible.

In regards to qualifications I went to the University of North Texas and hold a degree in Literature and another in Tech Writing.

If you respond I won't likely be back for over a week as I'm going on vacation. See ya.

[_moksha]

In regards to qualifications I went to the University of North Texas and hold a degree in Literature and another in Tech Writing.

Hey, I once stayed at a Motel 6. That should give us both imminent qualifications for brain surgery and this forum.

[_The Nehor]

In regards to qualifications I went to the University of North Texas and hold a degree in Literature and another in Tech Writing.

Hey, I once stayed at a Motel 6. That should give us both imminent qualifications for brain surgery and this forum.

I wasn't bragging Moksha, JAK implied earlier in the thread that I had never been to college when I mentioned some of my college professors. The smartest man I know dropped out of High School. His hobby is building bombs and blowing up abandoned barns in new ways.

[_moksha]

I wasn't bragging Moksha, JAK implied earlier in the thread that I had never been to college when I mentioned some of my college professors. The smartest man I know dropped out of High School. His hobby is building bombs and blowing up abandoned barns in new ways.

I did not think you were bragging. Blowing up barns eh?

[_JAK]

Nehor states:

I'm sorry you find me great ignorance.

I think we're speaking two different languages here. You keep assuming that I'm trying to prove something. I'm not. You've taken it upon yourself to try to educate me on something I once believed and then discarded. I do not hold human reason, objective review, and material proof as highly as you do.

Evidence, reason, objective review, and proof appear an inconvenient truth for you.

Nehor states:

The differences between me and others who claim to have found God I do not presume to address. I know nothing about their experiences just as you know nothing of mine. Without real information judgment is impossible.

A disingenuous remark in that you withhold information as you substitute assertions. Making things up as you appear to do is hardly “real information.” Definitions!

Personal experience is highly subjective. Your evasion has appeared disingenuous. You say information is important. At the same time you have offered claims rather than “information.”

I would agree that information is critical to evaluation and conclusion. Your posts hardly have demonstrated that you value information. Perhaps in time, you may.

Nehor states:

In regards to qualifications I went to the University of North Texas and hold a degree in Literature and another in Tech Writing.

Really. Well, that’s encouraging!

Nehor states:

If you respond I won't likely be back for over a week as I'm going on vacation. See ya.

Ah. Just a few posts ago, you said you lacked "time" to respond.

Have FUN!

JAK

[_moksha]

[_nomi]

I'm actaully impressed by Nehor's responses. Wow, you go boy. Look fact of the matter to me anyways is that in my ten years in the church I don't remember worshiping Joseph Smith, do I praise him...YES! I will be forever grateful that he went to a grove and poured out his heart to God and as a result I now have the information that I need about God. Whether you believe it or not, there is a God but that's a different topic all together. I'm not here to change anyone's views but here to tell people that there is a difference between Worship and Praise. If you don't believe me, then why don't you take a look in your dictionaries. I don't think that Joseph Smith is above Jesus Christ. I have never heard the prophet of the church or any teachings say contrary to that. Remember that the plan of salvation centers around the Atonment of Christ, without it all men would perish. Joseph Smith, restored the true gospel under the direction of Christ. Yes we sing praises to the man who communed with Jehovah, but we do not worship the man that commune with Jehovah. There is a vast diffrence between Praise and Worship, if you don't believe me then go to your dictionaries. Technology is a nice invention use it to your advantage, these days there are online dictinaries.