Joseph Smith: Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

[_charity]

This is really too funny. All the pretended outrage that I called 99.99% of the world crazy. You people ought to look at your Paranoia Meters once in a while. And take aspirin or something.

Figure it out. This whole thread has been about a supposed psychological disorder for Joseph Smith. The basis for the diganosis is that he had delusions of grandeur, thought he saw angels, had visions, talked to God, etc. And as non-believers you reject his explanations and descriptions of his own experiences as being false, even delusional. But these attempts to vilify him fall down around your ears IF they are really true.

Now, leave your paranoia at the door, and considere the statement hypothetically. IF there really are prophets, a God who talks to mortals, gold plates, an angel Moroni, and Joseph Smith merely reported his real life experiences, then he was living in the real world. He wasn't delusional. He was just telling the truth.

Keep up here. IF he was describing the real world (angels, visions, God talking to him) then those who say there are no such things as angels, visions, etc. are rejecting the real world. To some degree, any degree, that people refuse to acknowledge the real world they are a little off balance, a little crazy. The more you deny the real world, the more crazy you are.

What I have posted above is just plain old logic. You know logical arguments always contain IF. I hope you noticed the big read IFs. And yes, people can function fairly well in the world, even if they are a little crazy. Whether or not you think Joseph Smith was a prophet probably has very little to do with your day to day functioning.

And now for my personal opinion: If you reject that reality, you are going to have a really serious "well, duh" experience when you get on the other side. Smiley face.

[_beastie]

Why is faith necessary, charity?

[_beastie]

The point I’m trying to make to charity is this.

All faiths, including Mormonism, make claims that can only be accepted through faith. This is why the necessity of faith is written into theology. The reason why faith is a prerequisite is due to the fact that there is not sufficient empirical evidence alone to support belief. If it were otherwise, faith would not be required.

People can only be described as delusional when they are affixed to beliefs that are in direct contradiction to empirical evidence.

So, even if the LDS truth claims were true, because of the fact that faith is required to bridge the gap between empirical evidence and belief, it would still not be delusional to reject those beliefs.

In other words, it’s as if God constructed a reality that is deliberately hidden, and can only be accessed through the willingness to accept that empirical evidence may not support that reality. God did this to force human beings to exercise faith, for whatever reason. It is not delusional to reject the existence of a reality that is deliberately hidden.

[_gramps]

This is really too funny. All the pretended outrage that I called 99.99% of the world crazy. You people ought to look at your Paranoia Meters once in a while. And take aspirin or something.

Figure it out. This whole thread has been about a supposed psychological disorder for Joseph Smith. The basis for the diganosis is that he had delusions of grandeur, thought he saw angels, had visions, talked to God, etc. And as non-believers you reject his explanations and descriptions of his own experiences as being false, even delusional. But these attempts to vilify him fall down around your ears IF they are really true.

Now, leave your paranoia at the door, and considere the statement hypothetically. IF there really are prophets, a God who talks to mortals, gold plates, an angel Moroni, and Joseph Smith merely reported his real life experiences, then he was living in the real world. He wasn't delusional. He was just telling the truth.

Keep up here. IF he was describing the real world (angels, visions, God talking to him) then those who say there are no such things as angels, visions, etc. are rejecting the real world. To some degree, any degree, that people refuse to acknowledge the real world they are a little off balance, a little crazy. The more you deny the real world, the more crazy you are.

What I have posted above is just plain old logic. You know logical arguments always contain IF. I hope you noticed the big read IFs. And yes, people can function fairly well in the world, even if they are a little crazy. Whether or not you think Joseph Smith was a prophet probably has very little to do with your day to day functioning.

And now for my personal opinion: If you reject that reality, you are going to have a really serious "well, duh" experience when you get on the other side. Smiley face.

Sorry Charity, but some of us less intellectually gifted have a hard time following lines of thought with so many "IFs".

Could you simplify that for me. Logic is especially difficult.

So, again, because I couldn't keep up, help a poor old man out.

Thanks in advance, Instructor.

[_Zoidberg]

Referring to Setbag's thread, we all need a dose of L-dopa to cure us and help us see the real world.

You know what else increased levels of dopamine may cause? Stronger libido. Now, if Joseph Smith had a high level of dopamine, that would explain not only the visions, but also polygamy.

But, of course, "it all came from God" is a much better explanation.

[_charity]

All faiths, including Mormonism, make claims that can only be accepted through faith. This is why the necessity of faith is written into theology. The reason why faith is a prerequisite is due to the fact that there is not sufficient empirical evidence alone to support belief. If it were otherwise, faith would not be required.

People can only be described as delusional when they are affixed to beliefs that are in direct contradiction to empirical evidence.

So, even if the LDS truth claims were true, because of the fact that faith is required to bridge the gap between empirical evidence and belief, it would still not be delusional to reject those beliefs.

In other words, it’s as if God constructed a reality that is deliberately hidden, and can only be accessed through the willingness to accept that empirical evidence may not support that reality. God did this to force human beings to exercise faith, for whatever reason. It is not delusional to reject the existence of a reality that is deliberately hidden.

All faiths do require faith. Science requires faith. You have not personally experienced every event, study, or law of physics. You are taking somebody's word for something. I have not personally replicated each study in psychology that I find credible, for instanc.e I guess you could say I take Garcia and Koelling's landmark study on faith.

So let's look at the Church's faith demands about the Book of Mormon.

1. Joseph gets the plates from an angel. By himnself. Faith required.
2. Three other men see the plates and the angel. No faith required. (But if you aren't going to believe it you have to work pretty hard to tear down their lifelong affirmations of what they saw.)
3. Eight other men see the plates, no angel, get to examine them, turn the pages, etc. No faith required. (And hard work to discredit them.)

So there is empirical evidence. You just have to stick your fingers in your ears and hum to pretend there isn't.

[_beastie]

All faiths do require faith. Science requires faith. You have not personally experienced every event, study, or law of physics. You are taking somebody's word for something. I have not personally replicated each study in psychology that I find credible, for instanc.e I guess you could say I take Garcia and Koelling's landmark study on faith.

Science does not require faith, unless you redefine the word "faith". Science is the polar opposite of faith. You must test, retest, provide empirical evidence.

Being willing to trust what experts repeatedly assert without repeating the experiments oneself is not faith. Faith isn't just "taking someone's word" for it, unless you fundamentally change the meaning of the word.

So let's look at the Church's faith demands about the Book of Mormon.

1. Joseph gets the plates from an angel. By himnself. Faith required.
2. Three other men see the plates and the angel. No faith required. (But if you aren't going to believe it you have to work pretty hard to tear down their lifelong affirmations of what they saw.)
3. Eight other men see the plates, no angel, get to examine them, turn the pages, etc. No faith required. (And hard work to discredit them.)

So there is empirical evidence. You just have to stick your fingers in your ears and hum to pretend there isn't.

You must be kidding me. The fact that people testified these things occurred is supposed to count as empirical evidence? In fact, such strong empirical evidence that people who reject it are crazy?

All sorts of people have "testified" to the truthfulness of all sorts of claims throughout history. People see leprechauns, fairies, ghosts, aliens, etc etc. Is their word alone supposed to count as empirical evidence, too?

This is so dumbfounding I want to make sure I am not misunderstanding you. Are you saying that the testimony of the witnesses should count as such strong empirical evidence that people who reject it are delusional? (using the way you use the term, still functional, but denying reality and delusional)

[_Chap]

All faiths, including Mormonism, make claims that can only be accepted through faith. This is why the necessity of faith is written into theology. The reason why faith is a prerequisite is due to the fact that there is not sufficient empirical evidence alone to support belief. If it were otherwise, faith would not be required.

People can only be described as delusional when they are affixed to beliefs that are in direct contradiction to empirical evidence.

So, even if the LDS truth claims were true, because of the fact that faith is required to bridge the gap between empirical evidence and belief, it would still not be delusional to reject those beliefs.

In other words, it’s as if God constructed a reality that is deliberately hidden, and can only be accessed through the willingness to accept that empirical evidence may not support that reality. God did this to force human beings to exercise faith, for whatever reason. It is not delusional to reject the existence of a reality that is deliberately hidden.

All faiths do require faith. Science requires faith. You have not personally experienced every event, study, or law of physics. You are taking somebody's word for something. I have not personally replicated each study in psychology that I find credible, for instanc.e I guess you could say I take Garcia and Koelling's landmark study on faith.

So let's look at the Church's faith demands about the Book of Mormon.

1. Joseph gets the plates from an angel. By himnself. Faith required.
2. Three other men see the plates and the angel. No faith required. (But if you aren't going to believe it you have to work pretty hard to tear down their lifelong affirmations of what they saw.)
3. Eight other men see the plates, no angel, get to examine them, turn the pages, etc. No faith required. (And hard work to discredit them.)

So there is empirical evidence. You just have to stick your fingers in your ears and hum to pretend there isn't.

There is more than one point in this post.

The first, "faith is needed for science just as for religion" ,can be answered as follows:

I read a scientific paper.

First I check whether the authors have given sufficiently clear details of their experiments and investigations so that I could, if I chose REPLICATE them (i.e. do them myself).

Then I may well (in some cases) decide to do so. No "faith" needed there: if the experiments check out, I have the evidence of my own eyes.

In other cases, I rely on the fact that the authors have careers, which are dependent on their research being found credible, and on their experiments being found to be repeatable. I know that they do not know that I will not repeat their experiments, and hence detect any fraud they may have committed. Therefore, to that extent I may feel it is safe to trust their statements about their results WITHOUT repeating their experiments. It is a matter of judging plausibility, not faith in the religious sense.

But that only makes sense if there is the possibility of replication. In the case of reports of seeing angels, handling miraculously delivered gold plates, there is no possible replication. So the nature of the belief required is quite different.

The second point is the 'there is empirical evidence' claim.

No - what there is is 'testimony' in the legal sense of a statement by somebody, in speech or in writing, that something occurred or was the case. Such testimony may or may not be 'admitted as evidence' in a court of law. Whether it is or not will depend entirely on the rules of evidence in the jurisdiction in question. But there is no 'empirical evidence' in the usual sense used by scientists in their professional discourse. In such discourse claims that 'empirical evidence' for a certain view exists usually amount to saying that there are replicable (see above) procedures that can be followed that will produce such evidence, and produce it in a public way that anybody can see, independent of their moral or religious state or convictions.

The statements made by Joseph Smith and his associates do not amount to empirical evidence in that usual, scientific, sense.

[_charity]

You must be kidding me. The fact that people testified these things occurred is supposed to count as empirical evidence? In fact, such strong empirical evidence that people who reject it are crazy?

All sorts of people have "testified" to the truthfulness of all sorts of claims throughout history. People see leprechauns, fairies, ghosts, aliens, etc etc. Is their word alone supposed to count as empirical evidence, too?

This is so dumbfounding I want to make sure I am not misunderstanding you. Are you saying that the testimony of the witnesses should count as such strong empirical evidence that people who reject it are delusional? (using the way you use the term, still functional, but denying reality and delusional)

I will concede to Chap's differentialtion between empirical evidence and eyewitness testimony.

Now, beastie, I want you to be clear on this, because you still aren't.

No, people who refuse to believe evidence are not delusional. They are denying reality. There is a difference.

Maybe this wll get the point across. You know that the perfect defense against slander and libel is the truth. The perfection defense against being called delusional and crazy for seeing God and angels and having visions is if God really appeared to you and so did angels and the visions are real.

[_beastie]

I will concede to Chap's differentialtion between empirical evidence and eyewitness testimony.

Good. Progress.

Now, beastie, I want you to be clear on this, because you still aren't.

No, people who refuse to believe evidence are not delusional. They are denying reality. There is a difference.

Maybe this wll get the point across. You know that the perfect defense against slander and libel is the truth. The perfection defense against being called delusional and crazy for seeing God and angels and having visions is if God really appeared to you and so did angels and the visions are real.

We aren't talking about whether or not the people who claim to see God and angels are delusional and crazy. If, indeed, there really is a God and angels and these people did have visits from them, they clearly are not delusional. That is not the question. The question is the one you framed:

If Joseph Smith was a prophet, then all the people who refsue to believe him are the ones who are not mentally healthy because they are denying reality and living in a concocted world of their own.

You're going to nitpick about my use of the word "delusional"? Ok, every time I used "delusional" just substitute: "Living in a concocted world of their own." I don't want to type that many words each time, but you should just go ahead and insert those words every time I use the word "delusional". I will place an asterix after the word to remind you. Ok?

You are clearly saying that IF the church is true, people who reject its claims are a little crazy and delusional.*

I am saying that this is not a logically supportable conclusion, due to the fact that faith is required to accept these claims even if the church is true. Faith is required to bridge the gap between the lack of empirical evidence and belief. If adequate empirical evidence were available to support these claims faith would not be necessary. But faith is necessary. As long as faith is required to make the leap of belief, then people who do not make that leap cannot be accused of being crazy and delusional.*

So while they may be "denying reality", it is a reality that is hidden in that it lacks empirical evidence. Hence, it is perfectly logical and reasonable to reject it.