Our leaders

[_marg]

...Smith having special seeric abilities] out of hand. I, however, prefer to keep an open mind :)"

One should always operate with an open mind to new information and be willing to change one's views based upon new reasoning and evidence. But one shouldn't keep an open mind on a position in discussion which caters to the irrational giving it equal respectibility. Scientists appreciate all theories are speculative but strong theories can be treated as if fact for operational theories. As a for instance evolutionary theory. Theories which oppose evolutionary theory,i.e. intelligent design by God are not given equal respectibility just because someone claims God is a possibility. One can speculate or fantasize all they wish it doesn't mean their fantasies deserve respect equal to other counter theories which are based on actual supportable data. That Smith was a con man is based on actual data, that there is no evidence for psychic seer ability in this world is based on inductive reasoning (evidence), that many people are easily conned is based on evidence..etc etc. It is based on evidence that Smith had no seeric ability. That is the rational position..the irrational position is that Smith had special seeric ability in actuality and that is the position Nevo is taking which as I said in a previous post to you, you have failed to acknowledge. But Nevo does have the integrity in discussion, you seem to lack and has acknowledged this.

[_marg]

No, not upset. Although, I must say, "I was somewhat surprised."

I get impatient and sometimes angry, when the irrational is catered to. Wasting my time responding to EA with his nonsense made me angry and you got the tail end of that.

[_EAllusion]

I totally missed the point

Yes, you did. You wrote, "it seems to me Nevo is using his [Vogel's] words to suggest that even Vogel doesn't dismiss Smith having special seeric abilities." The thing is we have a quote from Nevo discussing Vogel's words where he specifically states that he thinks Vogel dismisses Smith having special seeric abilities. Then you go off and write this long paragraph on why certain ideas don't deserve as much respectability as others, such as evolutionary theory vs. intelligent design. This is a point I have not disagreed with, would not, and has nothing to do with what is actually being disputed. You are incapable of following a rather simple point-counterpoint. Again, this is why I was annoyed with your condescension.

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

[_richardMdBorn]

Marg As far as JAK goes he's brilliant.

I’m amazed that you continue to assert this. The threads on the immaculate conception and the virgin birth prove the opposite. He finds it hard to stay on topic (to put it mildly) and he could not understand the difference between the two doctrines. They’re not hard to comprehend. See for example:

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discus ... highlight=

You’re incorrect in your interpretation of what I stated in multiple posts.

I offered various links previously from our common denominator (the Internet) on this issue. It is marg who is correct not you, Richard.

Please review on topic:

Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Items

Doctrinal claims on this issue are claims for which no evidence can be obtained to confirm those claims from the ancient past.

My analysis was quite on topic contrary to your present assertion here.

Also, contrary to your analysis, claims prove nothing as you argue here. We can assess and access only that which doctrine-makers have claimed over hundreds of years. We cannot assess the validity of “sin” or the absence of it as doctrines claim.

Not only are there multiple doctrines, there are multiple interpretations which lead to further doctrines as made by various religious groups and pundits for those groups.

It is you who appear not to comprehend that reality regarding evolution of doctrines.

JAK, I don't think that anyone who has read these threads agrees with your comments. You repeatedly showed that you did not understand either the immaculate conception or the virgin birth. I agree that doctrines can evolve over time but that was never the issue. The issue was your muddled thinking and inability to admit what was obvious to everyone else who commented on the threads.

[_JAK]

You’re incorrect in your interpretation of what I stated in multiple posts.

I offered various links previously from our common denominator (the Internet) on this issue. It is marg who is correct not you, Richard.

Please review on topic:

Item
Item
Item
Item
Item
Items

Doctrinal claims on this issue are claims for which no evidence can be obtained to confirm those claims from the ancient past.

My analysis was quite on topic contrary to your present assertion here.

Also, contrary to your analysis, claims prove nothing as you argue here. We can assess and access only that which doctrine-makers have claimed over hundreds of years. We cannot assess the validity of “sin” or the absence of it as doctrines claim.

Not only are there multiple doctrines, there are multiple interpretations which lead to further doctrines as made by various religious groups and pundits for those groups.

It is you who appear not to comprehend that reality regarding evolution of doctrines.

Richard states:

JAK, I don't think that anyone who has read these threads agrees with your comments. You repeatedly showed that you did not understand either the immaculate conception or the virgin birth. I agree that doctrines can evolve over time but that was never the issue. The issue was your muddled thinking and inability to admit what was obvious to everyone else who commented on the threads.

JAK responds:

The websites support my position. That’s why I listed them.

The “dogmatic definition” was codified by Pope Pius IX in 1854. Hence, it was 1,800 years before the official pronouncements of Pope Pius IX, clearly a late evolution of a doctrine, officially.

Protestants have generally rejected the dogma “because they do not consider the development of dogmatic theology to be authoritative apart from biblical exegesis, and that Mariology in general, including the Immaculate Conception, is not taught in the Bible.” (see source previously listed)

Additional views and analysis of “immaculate conception.”

Item
Item
Item
Item
Item

Why the need to codify the doctrine “Immaculate Conception”? Why was that required?

There are other questions which can follow a response to these which I’ll forgo presently, given what appears to be your misunderstanding of the various links which I have provided.

[_marg]

Let us not forget also that Joseph Smith admitted in court (or in a court proceeding) to not possessing seeric abilities, as per his money seeking activities.

No he didn't.

"Smith's defense was that he was a real seer, not a pretended one, and his witnesses, Josiah Stowell and Jonathan Thompson, gave reasons for their belief that he possessed a genuine gift" (Dan Vogel, ed., Early Mormon Documents, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1996-2003], 4:244).

That may have been his defence in court but I seem to remember that out of court he admitted to someone that he had no seeric ability. I'm not at home, nor do I have the time currently to investigate.

I believe also there was a witness to Smith admitting to Emma's dad he had no special ability involving the supernatural.

[_marg]

You might think so, but Joseph was able to convince a good many people that he could locate lost or hidden objects with his seer stone. If he never found anything with the seer stone, how do you suppose he gained a reputation as a seer in the first place?

As you well know Nevo 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence'. A claim of actual seeric ability if true is quite extraordinary. A few people such as listed in the quote you gave from vogel's book on Smith in this thread certainly is not extraordinary evidence sufficient to support such a claim of actual seeric ability. I believe M. Harris was one of the 4 people Vogel mentions. Harris tends to be noted as a rather gullible type. The other few Vogel mentions might be as well, or it's even possible they colluded with Smith or even may have liked him such that they were motivated to protect him. In any evident "a good many people" your words, is rather non specific as to numbers involved and given the sort of claim, does not even warrant taking seriously that there is sufficient evidence to consider Smith might possibly have actually had seeric ability.

[_marg]

Are you suggesting Joseph Smith actually DID find lost or hidden objects with his seer stone?

I'm not sure how one would acquire "an established reputation as a gifted seer" (as Marquardt and Walters put it) without ever having anything to show for it. Joseph stated at his 1826 trial that he had "frequently ascertained . . . where lost property was" using his seer stone. And there is at least one account of him doing just that.

"E.W. Vanderhoof remembered that his Dutch grandfather once paid young Smith 75 cents to look into his stone to locate a stolen mare. The grandfather soon 'recovered his beast, which Joe said was somewhere on the lake shore and [was] about to be run over to Canada'" (D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, 2d ed., 43; Dan Vogel, Early Mormon Documents, 4:239-240).

Josiah Stowell testified that Joseph, looking in his stone, was able to describe in detail his house and outbuildings--even describing a tree with a "man's hand" painted on it--without having ever set foot on Stowell's property.

Martin Harris described Joseph using his seer stone to find a tie pin that Harris had accidentally dropped into a pile of straw and wood shavings.

As Dan Vogel observes, "these proofs separate Smith from the group of self-deluded treasure seers, for they were either true demonstrations of his seeric gift or evidence of his talent for deception" (Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, 43). Since Vogel's worldview does not admit the supernatural, he rejects the former explanation out of hand. I, however, prefer to keep an open mind :)

Nevo you seem to like quoting Vogel to support your position. I really don't think Vogel should have made the suggestion that the evidence he gives warrants even suggesting a possibility of actual seeric ability. There is really nothing above which indicates sufficient or even close to being significant evidence to warrant suggesting that Smith possibly actually had seeric ability. I commented on this in my previous post also. You are quoting Vogel so my criticism is really with Vogel in this case, not with you.

[_marg]

Hopefully, this will clear up any confusion regarding Vogel's beliefs vis-a-vis Joseph Smith and the supernatural:

I believe that during his early career as a treasure seer, he was a charlatan but came to believe that he was, in fact, called of God and thereafter occasionally used deceit to bolster his religious message. I do not believe in real magicians, slippery treasures, bleeding ghosts, and so I regard Smith's discovery of the tail feather as an example of fraud. Nevertheless, there is a high degree of sincerity in Smith's career as a prophet, [and] his defense of God against deism and skepticism. His touching emotional outburst at the 1830 baptism of his father appears to have been genuine.

-- Dan Vogel, Joseph Smith: The Making of a Prophet, xv.

Once again I'm critical of Vogel's words and assumptions. I'm finding once again, that Vogel's words would be very acceptable to a believer. But how on earth would Vogel know that Smith was sincere? Those who are conned find the con men sincere, at least at the time. That doesn't mean the con man doesn't appreciate the con. Smith would have had to appreciate such an elaborate con as constructing the Book of Mormon. He would have had to appreciate that no God was involved. And to think otherwise would require one to be gullible. I can see Nevo why you like quoting Vogel.

[_marg]

I totally missed the point

Yes, you did. You wrote, "it seems to me Nevo is using his [Vogel's] words to suggest that even Vogel doesn't dismiss Smith having special seeric abilities." The thing is we have a quote from Nevo discussing Vogel's words where he specifically states that he thinks Vogel dismisses Smith having special seeric abilities. Then you go off and write this long paragraph on why certain ideas don't deserve as much respectability as others, such as evolutionary theory vs. intelligent design. This is a point I have not disagreed with, would not, and has nothing to do with what is actually being disputed. You are incapable of following a rather simple point-counterpoint. Again, this is why I was annoyed with your condescension.

http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

EA, those words you quoted are not mine.

Reviewing this thread again, I've been taken away from the board due to family issues I noticed nevo at the end of the post I first commented on did acknowledge he appreciated Vogel didn't accept the supernatural. I hadn't noticed that Nevo had made that acknowledgment.

In any event I still have a problem or criticism with Vogel's assumption and how he words things such that believers would find what he says acceptable. I've commented on this in previous post. So it's not Nevo's fault that he's able to use Vogel to support his position.

The fact is that just because a few people may have believed Smith had seeric ability does not mean that warrants suggesting seeric ability as a possibility as Vogel did in the quote Nevo gave. And the people Vogel mentions as least some are not even strong credible witnesses anyhow.

As far as your continued criticism of my critical thinking I've already agreed with you. So what's the point of continuuing post after post with it. I'll acknowledge once more, I don't consider myself a good critical thinker, and I've never said I was, in fact when people accuse me of thinking I am, I've always pointed out that I'm not and I can even give my reasoning for that.

I am critical of Nevo's rational thinking on matters pertaining to Smith's seeric ability and polygamy, as evidenced in this thread.