Perpetual motion in regards to Mormonism.

[_mentalgymnast]

See my sig line.

You really ought to put the sig line within its contextual framework.

If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an impostor cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions which would be easy to detect.

Here's the thing. Over the years as I've read the stuff that's "out there" from the critics, I've noticed a pattern of tunnel visioned/myopic/narrowness in the way topics/issues are approached. Peripheral issues, such as those covered in Givens' Viper on the Hearth are focused on to the exclusion of particulars having to do with harmonizing doctrines with the Bible and/or other ancient texts/writings. One example to illustrate. Book of Abraham critics focus on how the text of the Book of Abraham came into being. There are issues there to be dealt with because there are some missing puzzle pieces. OTOH, the critics tend towards avoiding the internal "evidences" (the kind of stuff that Kerry Shirts and the FARMS folks are into and spend time with) which point towards parallels with the ancient world...and if they do look at those evidences they say they were simply lucky hits or coincidences. Or that Joseph Smith was a master at being able to round up these parallels or "hits" from his surrounding environment (reading from books, newspapers...other people traveling through the area, etc.) and then editing them into his fraudulent Book of Abraham.

There seems to be an unwillingness to look at the bigger picture. Generally speaking, critics go towards micro rather than macro. Over and over and over again.

And that's the point that I was trying to make in my original post. I think if you look at your sig line in its totality, as I've quoted it, you can see that JFS is asking us to look at the bigger picture/context of Joseph Smith's words/works/doctrines as we try to resolve questions concerning his prophetic calling.

Regards,
MG

[_Scottie]

Here's the thing. Over the years as I've read the stuff that's "out there" from the critics, I've noticed a pattern of tunnel visioned/myopic/narrowness in the way topics/issues are approached. Peripheral issues, such as those covered in Givens' Viper on the Hearth are focused on to the exclusion of particulars having to do with harmonizing doctrines with the Bible and/or other ancient texts/writings. One example to illustrate. Book of Abraham critics focus on how the text of the Book of Abraham came into being. There are issues there to be dealt with because there are some missing puzzle pieces. OTOH, the critics tend towards avoiding the internal "evidences" (the kind of stuff that Kerry Shirts and the FARMS folks are into and spend time with) which point towards parallels with the ancient world...and if they do look at those evidences they say they were simply lucky hits or coincidences. Or that Joseph Smith was a master at being able to round up these parallels or "hits" from his surrounding environment (reading from books, newspapers...other people traveling through the area, etc.) and then editing them into his fraudulent Book of Abraham.

There seems to be an unwillingness to look at the bigger picture. Generally speaking, critics go towards micro rather than macro. Over and over and over again.

And that's the point that I was trying to make in my original post. I think if you look at your sig line in its totality, as I've quoted it, you can see that JFS is asking us to look at the bigger picture/context of Joseph Smith's words/works/doctrines as we try to resolve questions concerning his prophetic calling.

In other words, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain....

I wonder, MG, if the same statement holds true if you replace Joseph Smith with Warren Jeffs?

[_mentalgymnast]

I wouldn't send them to a critic who has already made up his/her mind and as a result has a closed mind as to the possibilities.

Regards,
MG

OR to a TBM who has "already made up his/her mind and as a result has a closed mind as to the possibilities."

I agree.

Ideally, primary sources or at least neutrally slanted edited works (if one can find them) are best. Critics and/or apologists who already have a dogmatic agenda can muddy the waters and veer off course...even if done innocently or inadvertently. That's the inherent danger also with these boards. The novice wouldn't/doesn't even realize that they're only being led in one direction of many.

Regards,
MG

[_Trevor]

Yes, that's always a possibility.

Regards,
MG

It is actually fact, but at least we are moving forward here.

[_mentalgymnast]

Here's the thing. Over the years as I've read the stuff that's "out there" from the critics, I've noticed a pattern of tunnel visioned/myopic/narrowness in the way topics/issues are approached. Peripheral issues, such as those covered in Givens' Viper on the Hearth are focused on to the exclusion of particulars having to do with harmonizing doctrines with the Bible and/or other ancient texts/writings. One example to illustrate. Book of Abraham critics focus on how the text of the Book of Abraham came into being. There are issues there to be dealt with because there are some missing puzzle pieces. OTOH, the critics tend towards avoiding the internal "evidences" (the kind of stuff that Kerry Shirts and the FARMS folks are into and spend time with) which point towards parallels with the ancient world...and if they do look at those evidences they say they were simply lucky hits or coincidences. Or that Joseph Smith was a master at being able to round up these parallels or "hits" from his surrounding environment (reading from books, newspapers...other people traveling through the area, etc.) and then editing them into his fraudulent Book of Abraham.

There seems to be an unwillingness to look at the bigger picture. Generally speaking, critics go towards micro rather than macro. Over and over and over again.

And that's the point that I was trying to make in my original post. I think if you look at your sig line in its totality, as I've quoted it, you can see that JFS is asking us to look at the bigger picture/context of Joseph Smith's words/works/doctrines as we try to resolve questions concerning his prophetic calling.

In other words, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain....

I wonder, MG, if the same statement holds true if you replace Joseph Smith with Warren Jeffs?

I'm saying paying more attention to what's outside the curtain. If you do so, it may be possible to see why Warren Jeffs and Joseph Smith are ultimately running in opposition to each other. So no, I don't think the statement would hold true if you replace Joseph Smith with WJ.

The fruits are showing this to be the case.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Yes, that's always a possibility.

Regards,
MG

It is actually fact, but at least we are moving forward here.

Which direction? <g>

Regards,
MG

[_Trevor]

It is actually fact, but at least we are moving forward here.

Which direction? <g>

Regards,
MG

Well, as with anything, it is a matter of perspective. If you want to call your growing realization that opposition to Mormonism didn't appear ex nihilo as a poisoned apple from the Old Scratch "the wrong direction," you are welcome to do so. I prefer to think that you are moving in the right direction--the one in which certain facts and balance are returned to the historical picture.

[_antishock8]

See my sig line.

You really ought to put the sig line within its contextual framework.

If Joseph Smith was a deceiver, who willfully attempted to mislead the people, then he should be exposed; his claims should be refuted, and his doctrines shown to be false, for the doctrines of an impostor cannot be made to harmonize in all particulars with divine truth. If his claims and declarations were built upon fraud and deceit, there would appear many errors and contradictions which would be easy to detect.

Here's the thing. Over the years as I've read the stuff that's "out there" from the critics, I've noticed a pattern of tunnel visioned/myopic/narrowness in the way topics/issues are approached. Peripheral issues, such as those covered in Givens' Viper on the Hearth are focused on to the exclusion of particulars having to do with harmonizing doctrines with the Bible and/or other ancient texts/writings. One example to illustrate. Book of Abraham critics focus on how the text of the Book of Abraham came into being. There are issues there to be dealt with because there are some missing puzzle pieces. OTOH, the critics tend towards avoiding the internal "evidences" (the kind of stuff that Kerry Shirts and the FARMS folks are into and spend time with) which point towards parallels with the ancient world...and if they do look at those evidences they say they were simply lucky hits or coincidences. Or that Joseph Smith was a master at being able to round up these parallels or "hits" from his surrounding environment (reading from books, newspapers...other people traveling through the area, etc.) and then editing them into his fraudulent Book of Abraham.

There seems to be an unwillingness to look at the bigger picture. Generally speaking, critics go towards micro rather than macro. Over and over and over again.

And that's the point that I was trying to make in my original post. I think if you look at your sig line in its totality, as I've quoted it, you can see that JFS is asking us to look at the bigger picture/context of Joseph Smith's words/works/doctrines as we try to resolve questions concerning his prophetic calling.

Regards,
MG

Translation: Since Mormon doctrine is about as solid as pudding, and since no one can nail pudding to a wall effectively, I remain convinced that Mormonism is what it claims to be... Whatever that is. Critics are willfully ignorant to see it that way.

This kind of thinking is such horses**t. It's self-deception. It lays the foundation for lying to others. I'm not sure why it is that Mormons feel the need to lie to themselves and others, but they do. They do it often. Some do it with panache. Some do it with smoke and mirrors. Some are clumsy about it. But they do it. This is just another example of mental gymnastics, which is a euphamism for lying. Shame on you.

[_mentalgymnast]

...Mormon doctrine is about as solid as pudding, and since no one can nail pudding to a wall effectively, I remain convinced that Mormonism is what it claims to be... Whatever that is. Critics are willfully ignorant to see it that way.

This kind of thinking is such horses**t. It's self-deception. It lays the foundation for lying to others. I'm not sure why it is that Mormons feel the need to lie to themselves and others, but they do. They do it often. Some do it with panache. Some do it with smoke and mirrors. Some are clumsy about it. But they do it. This is just another example of mental gymnastics, which is a euphamism for lying. Shame on you.

Well, I guess that's all there is to it! Sounds like you have it altogether.

Oh, by the way, calling me a liar is disrespectful besides being untrue. I think there may be some around here that would vouch for that.

How old are you anyway? Oh my, to have things all figured out. It must be wonderful. I'm assuming that you're past the ripe old age of forty or so? Think of it! To have the special ability to pass judgment on others from having come to a final/accurate conclusion and resolution as to what is absolutely true in this world and the universe must be a wonderful thing.

Congratulations,
MG

[_antishock8]

...Mormon doctrine is about as solid as pudding, and since no one can nail pudding to a wall effectively, I remain convinced that Mormonism is what it claims to be... Whatever that is. Critics are willfully ignorant to see it that way.

This kind of thinking is such horses**t. It's self-deception. It lays the foundation for lying to others. I'm not sure why it is that Mormons feel the need to lie to themselves and others, but they do. They do it often. Some do it with panache. Some do it with smoke and mirrors. Some are clumsy about it. But they do it. This is just another example of mental gymnastics, which is a euphamism for lying. Shame on you.

Well, I guess that's all there is to it! Sounds like you have it altogether.

Oh, by the way, calling me a liar is disrespectful besides being untrue. I think there may be some around here that would vouch for that.

How old are you anyway? Oh my, to have things all figured out. It must be wonderful. I'm assuming that you're past the ripe old age of forty or so? Think of it! To have the special ability to pass judgment on others from having come to a final/accurate conclusion and resolution as to what is absolutely true in this world and the universe must be a wonderful thing.

Congratulations,
MG

Well, I do have it figured out. I know what I know, and I don't know what I don't know. What I do know is YOU are practicing self-deception. Hell, you even chose a handle that blatantly explains that to yourself and everyone else.

Determining a lie isn't rocket science, MG. It takes much more effort to sustain the lie, ie, "examine the internal evidences", than it does to acknowledge the lie for what it is... A lie. Joseph Smith was clearly a fraud. The Book of Abraham is hard proof of that, yet you actually use the most damning piece of evidence of Joseph Smith's fraud as evidence that he may not be a fraud.

Holy s**t, my friend.

Mental Gymnast, there is a reason why you chose that moniker, and it's not out of irony or a healthy sense of satire. Please stop deceiving yourself and others. It's rude.