Sethbag wrote:Total denial, and a reaffirmation of their belief that he was a holy man of God and a true Prophet. This just screams out for a direct comparison with the followers of Joseph Smith, who even with damning evidence of clearly immoral and ungodly things that he did, just sweep it all aside with their faith and proclaim that he was a holy man of God and a true Prophet.
But Seth, the followers of Warren Jeffs believe in a man who tried to commit suicide after a few months in jail. Did Joseph Smith do that? He was jailed again and again but never denied his testimony (yadda, yadda, yadda). It can easily be argued that since Jeffs has cracked under pressure but Smith never did, this comparison is far less compelling than it was before yesterday's news. What do you say?
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
rcrocket wrote:Yes, as long as there is duality in the world -- good and evil -- the likes of you are going to analogize the works of evil to the works of good to discredit the latter.
Well is it not a valid question to ask why it the testimony these people have any different then LDS testimony of Joseph Smith? You response above is really a non response.
Sethbag wrote: To an LDS out there reading this, please ask yourself, honestly and sincerely, what exactly is the difference between LDS who sweep aside the messy facts of Joseph Smith and the FLDS who sweep aside the messy facts of Warren Jeffs? And how do you, the believing LDS who "knows" that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet despite the evidence of his ungodly behavior, tell the difference between what you do to maintain your belief and what the FLDS do? Where is the critical difference here? Do you not know that the FLDS have the testimony of the Holy Ghost that Warren Jeffs is really the true Prophet on Earth, just like you believe the Holy Ghost confirms Joseph Smith as God's Prophet to you?
As for myself, a chapel Mormon, I didn't even know about these things until almost a year ago.
Now that I have become aware of these things, and other issues, well - yeah - I have changed my beliefs.
ktall
"Brigham said the day would come when thousands would be made Eunuchs in order for them to be saved in the kingdom of God." (Wilford Woodruff's Diary, June 2, 1857, Vol. 5, pages 54-55)
Sethbag wrote:Total denial, and a reaffirmation of their belief that he was a holy man of God and a true Prophet. This just screams out for a direct comparison with the followers of Joseph Smith, who even with damning evidence of clearly immoral and ungodly things that he did, just sweep it all aside with their faith and proclaim that he was a holy man of God and a true Prophet.
But Seth, the followers of Warren Jeffs believe in a man who tried to commit suicide after a few months in jail. Did Joseph Smith do that? He was jailed again and again but never denied his testimony (yadda, yadda, yadda). It can easily be argued that since Jeffs has cracked under pressure but Smith never did, this comparison is far less compelling than it was before yesterday's news. What do you say?
Why did Jeffs commit suicide? Possibly he couldn't put up with the threats and (hopefully) successful attempts at his balloon knot in the shower.
Don't drop the soap warren!
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
Sethbag wrote:Total denial, and a reaffirmation of their belief that he was a holy man of God and a true Prophet. This just screams out for a direct comparison with the followers of Joseph Smith, who even with damning evidence of clearly immoral and ungodly things that he did, just sweep it all aside with their faith and proclaim that he was a holy man of God and a true Prophet.
But Seth, the followers of Warren Jeffs believe in a man who tried to commit suicide after a few months in jail. Did Joseph Smith do that? He was jailed again and again but never denied his testimony (yadda, yadda, yadda). It can easily be argued that since Jeffs has cracked under pressure but Smith never did, this comparison is far less compelling than it was before yesterday's news. What do you say?
That actually reminds me of a discussion I was having on MAD fairly recently (one of very few that I've had there in several months) and brought up the idea that Jehovah's Witnesses are a lot like LDS. DCP chimed in with the very helpful opinion that they were in fact very different, because after all the LDS encourage higher education, and the JWs don't. In a conversation like this, the partisans for one side or the other will always say "yeah but we're really different because..." and list their reasons. I could have found JWs who would have said "yeah, but we're not the same people we adhere more closely to the Bible", or something like that. It doesn't even matter, really, in the "big picture" way I was comparing them.
LDS will think that the FLDS prophet is obviously wrong because, after all, he cracked under pressure, as you say, and Joseph Smith didn't.
Of course what Jeffs did or didn't do isn't even the really topic of the thread. It's how the followers react to it, and there the LDS have utterly failed to show me one shred of difference between how they respond and how the FLDS respond.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
Sethbag wrote:That actually reminds me of a discussion I was having on MAD fairly recently (one of very few that I've had there in several months) and brought up the idea that Jehovah's Witnesses are a lot like LDS. DCP chimed in with the very helpful opinion that they were in fact very different, because after all the LDS encourage higher education, and the JWs don't. In a conversation like this, the partisans for one side or the other will always say "yeah but we're really different because..." and list their reasons. I could have found JWs who would have said "yeah, but we're not the same people we adhere more closely to the Bible", or something like that. It doesn't even matter, really, in the "big picture" way I was comparing them.
LDS will think that the FLDS prophet is obviously wrong because, after all, he cracked under pressure, as you say, and Joseph Smith didn't.
Of course what Jeffs did or didn't do isn't even the really topic of the thread. It's how the followers react to it, and there the LDS have utterly failed to show me one shred of difference between how they respond and how the FLDS respond.
Well, besides The Dude's clear sarcasm, the comparison is apt. It's not so much comparing Joseph Smith to WJ, but the followers of both. The response to Jeffs' denial of his prophetic position is exactly what I would expect to see if tomorrow we found a signed statement from Joseph Smith saying he made it all up. There would be articles in the Ensign and in FARMS explaining the context and the deeper meaning behind the "alleged confession."
rcrocket wrote:I mean, by way of further example, there are several examples of men who claimed to be the Messiah, who led thousands of followers, and at least one example of a major religion other than Christianity claiming its founder was born of a virgin and whose blood was shed for mankind? Why not just cite these examples to undercut all of Christianity and Joseph Smith in one fell swoop?
Ok, sounds good to me.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
The article talks about Warren Jeffs having tried to hang himself, of his disavowing his prophet status to his brother, of his telling some followers of his immorality with a "sister and daughter" when he was younger, etc.
And then at the bottom of the article you have the last two sentences:
"He is a perfectly priestly man," said a woman who identified herself as Cathy. "He is a man of God, and we will always love him. Once a prophet, always a prophet."
Her husband, Patrick, told CNN, "It's hogwash. I don't believe it ... I will always consider him my prophet."
Total denial, and a reaffirmation of their belief that he was a holy man of God and a true Prophet. This just screams out for a direct comparison with the followers of Joseph Smith, who even with damning evidence of clearly immoral and ungodly things that he did, just sweep it all aside with their faith and proclaim that he was a holy man of God and a true Prophet.
To an LDS out there reading this, please ask yourself, honestly and sincerely, what exactly is the difference between LDS who sweep aside the messy facts of Joseph Smith and the FLDS who sweep aside the messy facts of Warren Jeffs? And how do you, the believing LDS who "knows" that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet despite the evidence of his ungodly behavior, tell the difference between what you do to maintain your belief and what the FLDS do? Where is the critical difference here? Do you not know that the FLDS have the testimony of the Holy Ghost that Warren Jeffs is really the true Prophet on Earth, just like you believe the Holy Ghost confirms Joseph Smith as God's Prophet to you?
It is these kinds of things that I think could be so powerful in helping people step out of the virtual reality of strong but ultimately false faith, and see their position a little more objectively. There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two situations, and an honest and introspective person, critically examining their own faith and the reasons behind it, should not fail to see that. It should trouble you if you consider these two situations and cannot objectively explain how the situations aren't directly parallel to each other. This is your rational mind screaming out to you that there's something wrong, that there's something you're papering over that hinders you from being objective about your religion.
This is another case study of the point I've long made: A hallmark of the true believer is a lack of critical self-reflection. Critical self-reflection is the practice of viewing yourself and evaluating your beliefs, your attitudes, your actions, etc. from an objective perspective while employing the same standards of reason and evidence to which you subject others. If you've read Adam Smith, it is akin to his "impartial spectator."
A critically self-reflective person would do precisely what you propose Sethbag.
True believers tend not to critically or objectively evaluate their beliefs, and they routinely excempt themselves from the standards of reason and evidence that they demand of others.
Even a smidgeon of critical self-reflection would reveal the disturbing parallels between Jeffs and Smith. Sadly, I don't think the comparisons will even occur to a good many of our true believing friends and family, nor to many in the apologetic crowd, whether unknowingly or willfully.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
rcrocket wrote:I mean, by way of further example, there are several examples of men who claimed to be the Messiah, who led thousands of followers, and at least one example of a major religion other than Christianity claiming its founder was born of a virgin and whose blood was shed for mankind? Why not just cite these examples to undercut all of Christianity and Joseph Smith in one fell swoop?
Ok, sounds good to me.
For a lawyer, Bob seems to have completely missed the point of the analogy.
rcrocket wrote:I mean, by way of further example, there are several examples of men who claimed to be the Messiah, who led thousands of followers, and at least one example of a major religion other than Christianity claiming its founder was born of a virgin and whose blood was shed for mankind? Why not just cite these examples to undercut all of Christianity and Joseph Smith in one fell swoop?
Ok, sounds good to me.
For a lawyer, Bob seems to have completely missed the point of the analogy.
Lawyers aren't all that smart, really. Though they sure think they are! ;=)
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil... Adrian Beverland