There's something strange about 'the Mormon debater'

[_LifeOnaPlate]

---It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant most church members are of their own church's claims.

It never ceases to amaze me how dogmatic vocal critics, former members, are in regards to doctrine.

I don't know whether it's tragic or comic, or if I should just tune them all out. It's certainly embarrassing.

We have more in common than we thought! I just appear more polite in keeping my snide thoughts to myself.

I guess official statements entitled "“The Family: A Proclamation to the WORLD" , weren't enough of a tip-off, were they? Or statements like "The prophets, seers, and revelators have had and still have the responsibility and privilege of receiving and declaring the word of God for the WORLD. He has been ordained and set apart as the prophet, seer, and revelator to the WORLD."

I don't deny that the prophets and apostles can issue statements to the world. Our mission itself is to the world, eventually to every nation kindred tongue and people, as you know. However, there are many inspired people in and out of the Church, and while they don't bear the title of "prophet" or "apostle" in the same sense, all are invited to be prophets. A premortal, mortal, and postmortal outlook from the LDS perspective makes it clear (in addition to the teachings of apostles and prophets past and present) a person can receive "all that the father hath" even if they weren't aware of LDS prophets and apostles during their lives.

But we're getting side tracked. We were talking about what makes the Church the "only true and living Church upon the face of the earth." This statement sometimes concerns members of other religions. I believe the options given us by God are larger than the simple joining of or belonging to a Church.

By the way, the point in question has NOTHING to do with "being held accountable for covenants they never even made", etc. It's like you're spontaneously changing the topic in mid-sentence.

I apologize for being unclear; it seems I was inadvertently shifting the goal posts, got off on a tangent. Still, I believe my comments regarding covenants do apply, as the Church itself is a covenant community. We learn in the Book of Mormon that we will be judged by the law we have received. I have connected the concept of covenants, laws, revelation, community and the Church. Again, sorry for any confusion.

The point is that it is LDS doctrine, and always has been, that the LDS prophet is the only man authorized by God to reveal his will not just to the Mormon church, but to the world. Hence the repeated presence of the word "WORLD" in the statements above, and about four thousand others.

There have been, and are, prophets to different people in the world who do not belong to the LDS Church. As far as doctrine and pronouncements of the Church are concerned, you are right in implying that revelation for the Church would come through the ordained apostles and prophets.

But being the "only true church" does not mean the "only good church," or the only church with any truth, etc. On that point, I believe you and I are agreed.

[_wenglund]

I haven't read all the replies, but have been meaning to add a comment since this thread started. Mormon apologists are a classic example of what Shermer discusses in his book, Why People Believe Weird Things. In particular, smart people believe weird things for nonsmart reasons, but then apply their "smart skills" to defending the weird thing. Men in particular are more prone to this than woman, according to Shermer.

Your prejudiced (highly biased, stereotyped, sexist) analysis of Mormon apologists is a classic example of what George Fuechsel coined as "garbage in, garbage out". ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_antishock8]

I haven't read all the replies, but have been meaning to add a comment since this thread started. Mormon apologists are a classic example of what Shermer discusses in his book, Why People Believe Weird Things. In particular, smart people believe weird things for nonsmart reasons, but then apply their "smart skills" to defending the weird thing. Men in particular are more prone to this than woman, according to Shermer.

Your prejudiced (highly biased, stereotyped, sexist) analysis of Mormon apologists is a classic example of what George Fuechsel coined as "garbage in, garbage out". ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ugh.

[_William Schryver]

I haven't had the time nor the inclination to follow this thread closely, but I have prepared the following reply to our esteemed interlocutor:


I wrote:

I perceive no such restraints, for in my defense of my beliefs, I will as easily appeal to the metaphysical as to the empirical, and to regard metaphysical discernment as being, generally speaking, more reliable, in terms of its use as a sensor of fact/truth, than the tools employed in any laboratory. Of course, the inherent difficulty of using metaphysical sensors is the degree of fine calibration required – calibration parameters which seldom have relevance for someone else. We communicate “beyond the veil” on a frequency peculiarly our own, and learn how to make judgments based on the peculiar nature of the signals we discern.

To which Talmage replied:

---Hence, the success of science over tarot card reading.

By the way, is it just me, or did you finish this paragraph by undermining your very first words in it? You began by saying that you don't see Mormonism as denying that empirically-established facts and logic impose constraints on what we may justifiably believe, but then ended by championing a wholly occult (in the true sense of the word) "epistemology" - which by definition DOES deny those constraints. You began by disputing my characterization, but ended by agreeing with it. How does that work?

And thus Talmage once again reveals his seeming incapacity for three-dimensional thinking. He would have us believe that if we appeal to the existence and reliability of occult knowledge – the metaphysical, then we cannot simultaneously appeal to the empirical.

This, of course, is quite predictable – for once one makes the jump to absolute naturalism, then there can be no further accommodation of the metaphysical in the equations that seek to explain our existence. Needless to say, those who have experienced, firsthand, the concrete clarity of such occult transmissions, have come to recognize that everything in this world is, at its most fundamental level, transitory and therefore inherently unreliable – whereas the communications from beyond the veil speak of things as they really are and as they really will be.

Talmage continues:

All you have to do to feel 100% metaphysical certitude about something is to be human, William. And yes, I've felt the same 100% level of certainty about Mormonism as you have, though I understand how difficult that will be for you to believe right now. I have also come to accept the fact that feeling certain that something is so, is not equivalent to it actually being so.

I never said anything about “feelings” in all of my response to your initial post. That is your definition of “metaphysical sensors,” not mine.

You see, I was quite clear in my descriptions of the nature of the metaphysical communications to which I referred – and to which many others have referred over the years. I’m talking about articulated intelligence. That all you (and many others) ever experienced in your days as a “believer” was some kind of vague “feeling” is not my problem, nor is it an indictment of the means by which intelligence is communicated across the divide of the veil.

I also wrote:

… those who have paid the price to “grow into the principle of revelation” are not likely to be very impressed by your insistence that such things are not real.

To which Talmage replied:

---You seem to have mistaken me for someone else...

Have I now?

I will admit that you are quite similar to many others I have known.

Although I will give you credit for a measure of unique eloquence, you’re following a very typical pattern here; one which I have observed several times over the course of my life. In a way, I feel a sense of sorrow for you. By all indications, you might have excelled in righteousness. On the other hand, your apparent inability to resist the urge to cover your sins, gratify your pride, and aspire to the honors of men has rendered you defenseless against the malady which has now consumed you.

In any event, I will simply reiterate, for the benefit of our readers, that revelation, as it is understood and has been experienced by many, is much, much more than a feeling. Subjective “feelings” might attract and even convince a considerable number of people to pursue a life path, but the level of communication to which I refer goes far beyond any fleeting sensation of well-being. Rather, as stated previously, it consists of articulated intelligence – although its “articulation” often challenges and sometimes defies the capacity of human language to convey second-hand. But those who know also recognize others who know, and according to the capacity of each, are able to share that knowledge; combining together (and thus augmenting) their strength in such a way that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Thus my statement:

Those who have grown “into the principle of revelation” are cognizant of others who are like them. They have seen that there is consistency to what they and others have learned through this unique sensory pathway. They form a whole, and combined as such, they constitute a power you cannot understand and they create a gravity that pulls into their orbit others who are attracted by the light and intelligence they exude.

So, I welcome you to continue “to kick against the pricks,” but, in time, you’ll see – like all those who have preceded you in this venture – that it was all an exercise in futility.

[_beastie]

beastie wrote:
I haven't read all the replies, but have been meaning to add a comment since this thread started. Mormon apologists are a classic example of what Shermer discusses in his book, Why People Believe Weird Things. In particular, smart people believe weird things for nonsmart reasons, but then apply their "smart skills" to defending the weird thing. Men in particular are more prone to this than woman, according to Shermer.



Your prejudiced (highly biased, stereotyped, sexist) analysis of Mormon apologists is a classic example of what George Fuechsel coined as "garbage in, garbage out". ;-)

Well, let's see. On the one hand we have Michael Shermer, and on the other hand we have Wade.

I beg to differ in regards to which source could rightly be labeled "garbage".

Aside from that bit of wadism, tell me: do intelligent people believe in completely erroneous belief systems, wade? And are they inclined to defend their completely erroneous belief systems?

[_Tal Bachman]

And thus Talmage once again reveals his seeming incapacity for three-dimensional thinking. He would have us believe that if we appeal to the existence and reliability of occult knowledge – the metaphysical, then we cannot simultaneously appeal to the empirical.

---Your comment contains a subtle and misleading twist on my view.

That view is this: Mormon belief (like many other types) relies on an appeal to occult sources of knowledge; and occult sources of knowledge (or "knowledge") by definition deny the constraints of empiricism and logic. Therefore, Mormon belief at its core relies on a denial of the constraints imposed by empiricism and logic.

Now, it is perfectly possible to ground a faith in an occult source ("I heard voices speaking to me", etc.), AND then, after that initial occult-driven commitment to a certain proposition has been made, employ (albeit in necessarily ad hoc fashion) empirically-derived arguments in defense of that faith. And in fact that is a very common occurrence. The FARMS folks do just that everyday. You seem to, too. We all did it.

To me it seems that all you're doing is agreeing with me, while imagining that you're disagreeing with me.

This, of course, is quite predictable – for once one makes the jump to absolute naturalism, then there can be no further accommodation of the metaphysical in the equations that seek to explain our existence. Needless to say, those who have experienced, firsthand, the concrete clarity of such occult transmissions, have come to recognize that everything in this world is, at its most fundamental level, transitory and therefore inherently unreliable – whereas the communications from beyond the veil speak of things as they really are and as they really will be.

---I guess where we differ, William, is in how we weight the reliability of occult versus empirical sources of "knowledge", even where occult experiences seem blazingly real, perhaps even more real than anything we normally experience.

For example, there are many thousands of people on the earth who claim that Jesus, or Allah, or Mary, or their dead grandpa, or aliens, have clearly spoken to them, or appeared to them. They claim that these "people" have told them to do everything from joining a particular church, to marrying a certain person, to killing their children or others, to immolating themselves so as to kill Israeli Jews or Americans...Sometimes the voices tell people that they are Jesus, or the reincarnation of Genghis Khan, or a servant girl in the court of Elizabeth the First. I know one woman who sincerely believes she channels an aboriginal medicine woman who died 550 years ago. This departed woman, it is claimed, speaks through this lady to others seeking guidance - and charges a lot of money per hour.

So I would say this. Because occult experiences can convince someone to overcome their most ferocious instincts - like avoiding violent death - we KNOW they seem blazingly, undeniably REAL to those having them. We know that. We even know it because of our own experiences. What would we NOT do for "the one true gospel", if we were convinced that God had told us to do it?

And yet, you and I would both agree that in almost all the cases I mentioned above, that it is far more likely that the voice telling someone to, I don't know, kill someone, or start taking heroin, isn't coming from a dead person, or Mary, or Jesus, at all. We would say it is far more likely, given all we know empirically about the human brain, that many, if not all, of these experiences, have a less than supernatural explanation. The truth, once again, is that you and I would probably agree that most occult sources of "knowledge" are not what their recipients claim; the only difference is that I look with similar skepticism on all occult experiences, while evidently you grant exemptions to those who believe just like you do. Understandable enough...but not exactly convincing given everything else mentioned here, and given what we would expect to find if Mormon occult experiences really conferred the kind of knowledge they are claimed to.

You see, I was quite clear in my descriptions of the nature of the metaphysical communications to which I referred – and to which many others have referred over the years. I’m talking about articulated intelligence.

---That's fine; all my points still stand. They await your reply.

Although I will give you credit for a measure of unique eloquence, you’re following a very typical pattern here; one which I have observed several times over the course of my life. In a way, I feel a sense of sorrow for you.

---Thanks!

By all indications, you might have excelled in righteousness.

---That's funny - a team of amateur goons from your church have spent the last four years announcing online that they "know me personally", and that I "never had a calling", that I was always a "floater", that I loved the music biz more than the gospel (in fact I've always hated the music biz, and always loved the church), etc. However could you have gotten the impression I was anything other than a lout?

On the other hand, your apparent inability to resist the urge to cover your sins, gratify your pride, and aspire to the honors of men has rendered you defenseless against the malady which has now consumed you.

---You mean, the "sin" of acknowledging that Joseph Smith didn't tell the truth about his experiences?

But even you acknowledge that to an extent, William; even you know that Smith was a talented and prolific liar in the case of his sexual life. Even you know that he got up and bore false witness against Law and company, calling them "perjurers", and announced that he only had "one wife", when in fact he had several dozen at the time. Even you know that he lied repeatedly to his mother, to his brother, to his wife, to his children, to his friends, to various officials and newspaper editors, and to the whole church, about his "polygamy"/sexual experiences. By that you know that he was comfortable lying; and you also know just how convincing he was, by the sheer number of his followers who believed him, when we know now that he was lying.

And remember, William - Mr. Smith was lying about a supposedly important religious doctrine, and supposedly important religious experiences. So, the truth is that you acknowledge just what I acknowledge, only to a lesser degree at present. It is a difference of degree only.

In any event, I will simply reiterate, for the benefit of our readers, that revelation, as it is understood and has been experienced by many, is much, much more than a feeling. Subjective “feelings” might attract and even convince a considerable number of people to pursue a life path, but the level of communication to which I refer goes far beyond any fleeting sensation of well-being. Rather, as stated previously, it consists of articulated intelligence – although its “articulation” often challenges and sometimes defies the capacity of human language to convey second-hand.

---Is that where you found out about all the sins I'm trying to hide?

So, I welcome you to continue “to kick against the pricks,” but, in time, you’ll see – like all those who have preceded you in this venture – that it was all an exercise in futility.

---I think I would like it if in fact there were any pricks for anyone to kick against. I would like to believe that there is a "one true way" on the planet that I could follow.

But the sad truth, as far as I can see, is that there are no "pricks". Here, there is only a religion, unique in many ways, but identical in the most important respect to all the others.

[_William Schryver]

TB:

I guess where we differ, William, is in how we weight the reliability of occult versus empirical sources of "knowledge", even where occult experiences seem blazingly real, perhaps even more real than anything we normally experience.

I’m quite confident you have no capacity to “weight the reliability” of something you have never experienced.

For example, there are many thousands of people on the earth who claim that Jesus, or Allah, or Mary, or their dead grandpa, or aliens, have clearly spoken to them, or appeared to them.

… and charges a lot of money per hour.

Yes, no doubt.

Again, you have no capacity to “weight the reliability” of something you have never experienced. All you can do is attempt to apply, by analogy, both ineptly and inaptly, something you do understand to something you do not.

Of course, this is quite predictable, and demonstrates remarkable consistency with those who have followed, beforehand, the course you are currently pursuing.

… even you know that Smith was a talented and prolific liar in the case of his sexual life. Even you know that he got up and bore false witness against Law and company, calling them "perjurers", and announced that he only had "one wife", when in fact he had several dozen at the time. Even you know that he lied repeatedly to his mother, to his brother, to his wife, to his children, to his friends, to various officials and newspaper editors, and to the whole church, about his "polygamy"/sexual experiences. By that you know that he was comfortable lying; and you also know just how convincing he was, by the sheer number of his followers who believed him, when we know now that he was lying.

Believe me when I tell you I am well-versed in all the original sources. Unlike your recently-prosecuted dalliance in LDS history, many of us have made the study of these things a life-long pursuit. Strangely enough, our conclusions – based on the totality of the historical evidence – differ greatly from your own. No doubt you will explain this seeming inconsistency on the fact that your eyes are “fresher” – having arrived so late to the game.

I suspect a better explanation is to be found here:

… those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.

What I do know is that, of those who knew Joseph Smith the best, the longest, the most intimately – having occasion for many years to observe him in public and in private – none shared in the views of the Laws, Higbees, Fosters, et al.

Perhaps they were all anxious to preserve their privileges of bacchanalian pleasure along with their revered prophet?

Or perhaps the tales of libidinous excess are not to be believed?

We know your judgment in the matter. And we gladly grant unto you your privilege of an opinion.

Nevertheless, I’m not sure what your fevered indictment of Joseph Smith has to do with the clearly-stated claims to personal revelation made by those who know. You see, we do not rely on our faith in others and what they claim to have seen, heard, or learned.

Neither do those who have “grown into the principle of revelation” depend on the inarticulate confirmation of some vague, fleeting “feelings”. What we know, we know with spiritual and intellectual certainty. It is as empirical as anything could ever be, this knowledge that has been verified by repeated experiments.

… I will impart unto you of my Spirit, which shall enlighten your mind, … by this shall you know all things whatsoever you desire of me …

And I … did go into the mount oft, and I did pray oft unto the Lord; wherefore the Lord showed unto me great things.

The combined power of those who know is something against which their impotent enemies strike in futility. Though a charismatic and persuasive few, like you and McCue, might claim a handful of strays – the caravan rolls on. And it will continue long after the names McCue and Bachman have been added to the forgotten rolls of those who have drowned in the Lethe before you.

[_Tal Bachman]

I’m quite confident you have no capacity to “weight the reliability” of something you have never experienced.

---How silly you sound...

Believe me when I tell you I am well-versed in all the original sources. Unlike your recently-prosecuted dalliance in LDS history, many of us have made the study of these things a life-long pursuit. Strangely enough, our conclusions – based on the totality of the historical evidence – differ greatly from your own. No doubt you will explain this seeming inconsistency on the fact that your eyes are “fresher” – having arrived so late to the game.

---Judging from your comments, I feel pretty certain I've read a lot more Mormon history, for a lot longer, than you have (I blew a lot of my royalty check money on LDS history for years). But I'm not so sure that even matters, because the truth is that assembling and reading through a mammoth LDS historical library isn't really necessary for determining the audacity and ease with which Smith lied about his sexcapades. All we really need to do is check the church's own genealogical site to confirm that by 1844, Smith had a lot more than "one wife", and then read his denials of that very fact in his sermon of May 26, 1844, which you can read in the church's own official history (in Volume 6).

In that sermon, those who had made public Smith's polygamous/extra-marital relationships were labeled by the Mormon founder as "false swearers". This was not true, and Smith knew it. In effect, he bore false witness against them. He then announced: "What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."

The truth is, as you will have gleaned from all the evidence as presented in treatments as diverse as those of Danel Bachman, Compton, Van Wagoner, and Avery and Newell, is that at the time that Smith denied having more than one wife, he had upwards of three dozen. His comments were at best indicative of a spectacularly selective amnesia; at worst, they constituted conscious, comfortable, very aggressive lying about what was supposedly one of Smith's private, sacred religious experiences, and a sacred principle of marriage. But either way, William...you and I must agree that Smith, on at least one point, was a very unreliable source of information about his religious experiences. Mustn't we?

So our views of Joseph Smith's reliability as a source of information about himself differ, at present, only in degree, don't they?

Your extensive reading in Mormon history will also have let you know that Emma Smith herself, upon finding out years after Smith's assassination just how deeply her late husband had deceived her, commented that that being the case, that he deserved to die as he did. (That was Emma Smith talking, not me).

I suspect a better explanation is to be found here:

… those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.

What I do know is that, of those who knew Joseph Smith the best, the longest, the most intimately – having occasion for many years to observe him in public and in private – none shared in the views of the Laws, Higbees, Fosters, et al.

---But William...before you fall for that one, consider: even if I myself were a pathological liar, an egomaniac, and a rampaging adulterous savage instead of a committed husband and father of eight...how would that affect what Joseph Smith and LDS church records themselves all tell you about Smith's credibility on at least one of his supposedly sacred experiences?

Don't you see? Don't you see how the old "those who cry transgression" quote is just a rah-rah slogan to shut down our critical faculties, a distraction, a totally irrelevant point? Joseph Smith lied to thousands and thousands of people about his experiences vis-a-vis polygamy, William. And one need not be guilty of similar "transgressions" to notice that. Take you, for example: I bet you are an honest person, entirely innocent of such transgressions. Yet you yourself must acknowledge that at least in this one case, Smith lied about his religious experiences. Mustn't you?

Does that mean you are a "child of disobedience"? Of course not.

So if we are interested in the question of whether Smith was a reliable source of information about his experiences, why don't we do the right thing, and stop regarding the noticing of evidence of unreliability as "proof" that the noticer is a "child of disobedience"? Why don't we just approach it the same way we would, if we were investigating whether L. Ron Hubbard was a reliable source of information about himself? I want to suggest to you that there's no good reason to lash out at others, or accuse them of all sorts of sins, simply because they noticed from church records themselves, that Joseph Smith was not always a reliable source of information about his experiences.

Nevertheless, I’m not sure what your fevered indictment of Joseph Smith has to do with the clearly-stated claims to personal revelation made by those who know. You see, we do not rely on our faith in others and what they claim to have seen, heard, or learned.

---I understand where you are coming from. So let me ask you a question I once asked my mom:

If Joseph Smith never really visited with God and Jesus, never really had any golden plates, and never really visited with Peter, James, and John, would you still say that Mormonism is all it claims to be?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

---I understand where you are coming from. So let me ask you a question I once asked my mom:

If Joseph Smith never really visited with God and Jesus, never really had any golden plates, and never really visited with Peter, James, and John, would you still say that Mormonism is all it claims to be?

That depends. Would there be any founding events that take their place? Take away Joseph's visions, the Book of Mormon, the authority bestowed, and you wouldn't really be talking about Mormonism anymore. It would be something else.

[_William Schryver]

Talmage:

---How silly you sound...

Eye of the beholder . . .

--Judging from your comments, I feel pretty certain I've read a lot more Mormon history, for a lot longer, than you have . . .

How silly you sound . . .

(... long litany of Joseph Smith’s alleged lies …)

Yawn.

"What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjurers."

I love this quote, by the way. Note that he, quite carefully, didn’t specify which of his wives he was able to find at the time.

I love Joseph Smith, and I love the raw materialism of the kingdom of God he revealed.

Yes, Joseph Smith had more than one wife. And of the wives he had, I believe he had sexual relationships with most, if not all. And I don’t find cause for condemnation in anything he ever did! Why? Because I know the nature and character of God. And the God I know sanctioned all that Joseph Smith did – with probably a few exceptions. And if there were a few things Joseph did that didn’t meet with God’s full approbation – oh, well. He shot a good enough percentage to meet my standards. I’m sorry he didn’t live up to yours.

Again:

Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them. But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.

I’m sure I will find it quite gratifying and even mildly amusing when all the over-righteous, self-congratulating “moralists” who have condemned Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and others end up quite surprised when they find out what God is really like.

Your extensive reading in Mormon history will also have let you know that Emma Smith herself, upon finding out years after Smith's assassination just how deeply her late husband had deceived her, commented that that being the case, that he deserved to die as he did. (That was Emma Smith talking, not me).

Actually, my “extensive reading in Mormon history” has already led me to believe that dear Sister Emma more than likely believed Joseph deserved to die in June of 1844, let alone “years after.” Emma had the same apparent visceral “moral outrage” towards Joseph that you do.

---But William...before you fall for that one, consider: even if I myself were a pathological liar, an egomaniac, and a rampaging adulterous savage instead of a committed husband and father of eight...how would that affect of what Joseph Smith and LDS church records themselves all tell you (sic) about Smith's credibility on at least one point of supposedly sacred experience and doctrine?

My opinion of your personal moral rectitude (or lack thereof) is, obviously, irrelevant to the topic at hand. As for Joseph Smith’s credibility, I have no reason to doubt it in any material respect. But you’re more than welcome to see if you can dredge up something that will surprise me.

Don't you see? Don't you see how the old "those who cry transgression" quote is just a rah-rah slogan to shut down our critical faculties, a distraction, a totally irrelevant point?

Quite to the contrary, it is precisely my “critical faculties” that have informed my judgment regarding those who accuse Joseph Smith (and Brigham Young, Porter Rockwell, etc.) of wrongdoing. It is my long-considered and often-confirmed observation that those who cry “transgression” the loudest when it comes to Joseph Smith, turn out to have a predilection for precisely the kind of debauchery they imagine him guilty of – hence the later polyamorous forays of so many of the piously-outraged contemporary condemners of Joseph Smith.

I never cease to be amused by the spirited denials of the apostate who never passes up an opportunity to assure us that his/her loss of faith had nothing to do with “sin.” You see, I’ve lost count of how many times in the last several decades I have scraped away the patina of their “intellectual integrity” and found a tawdry buggerer (or somesuch) lurking in the shadows. It’s just like John-Charles Duffy (see the most recent Dialogue) and his coming to the conclusion, within days of discovering what he considered the joys of buggering, that the Book of Mormon is not an authentic ancient history.

Funny how that works, isn’t it?

Now I don’t give a damn how Duffy or Quinn or anyone else chooses to get his rocks off. I am simply not impressed by the pious finger-wagging with which the average apostate (many of whom participate frequently here in Shadyville) so often heaps condemnation upon Joseph Smith and his alleged licentiousness.

… you yourself must acknowledge that at least in this one case, Smith lied about his religious experiences.

I do not perceive any relationship whatsoever between Joseph Smith’s Nauvoo-era public references to plural marriage and “his religious experiences” – whatever exactly you mean by that ambiguous phrase. If you intend to imply that, if Joseph Smith “lied” about his participation in plural marriage in 1844, that it brings into question the reality of his first vision in 1820, or the visit of Moroni in 1823 – well, as I said, I discern no perceptible relationship between these things.

So if we are interested in the question of whether Smith was a reliable source of information about his experiences, why don't we do the right thing …

“The Right Thing?” ??? What might that be?

Certainly a careful examination of the available material evidence is an indispensable aspect of such an investigation. But, in my estimation, there is no way to divorce any sophic examination of the history of Joseph Smith from its mantic counterpart. Hence the necessity of developing one’s acuity of spiritual sight, or, in other words, “growing into the principle of revelation.”

I am convinced that those who limit their examination of Joseph Smith to exclusively sophic approaches will always, in the end, conclude him to be a fraud – pious or otherwise. Only those who have mastered the ways by which mantic knowledge is acquired and interpreted can ever hope to understand God and his dealings with mankind, whether through prophets or through the personal ministrations of the Spirit of God.

If Joseph Smith never really visited with God and Jesus, never really had any golden plates, and never really visited with Peter, James, and John, would you still say that Mormonism is all it claims to be?

I’m not convinced that you and I mean the same thing when we speak, respectively, of what Mormonism “claims to be.”

Nonetheless, if the things you list were fantasy instead of reality, Mormonism could not be what it claims to be – according to my understanding of the phrase. Simply put, if there were no Moroni, no actual plates, no Nephites – there is nothing else, either. It’s a lie, and any other descriptor of fraud you might suggest.

On the other hand, if there were really no Moroni, no actual plates, no Nephites, etc., I am convinced that the “church” Joseph Smith founded would have never survived after his death, let alone grow steadily to the present day – not that its continued existence and growth are evidences of its truth, but simply because I consider the nature of its foundational claims such that, if not true, it would have failed long before now.