Polygamist Apologists blurring the Mormon line even more

[_Scottie]

When you read his books (or listen to his tapes, which were very popular on my mission), you just get this awesome feeling that if Superman and Mother Theresa had a baby, it would have been Joseph (obviously that couldn't happen because she was a nun, but hypothetically speaking).

I'm not so sure Joseph couldn't have been the 2nd product of a virginal conception. Hell, we all know that he did more for the salvation of mankind save Jesus.

[_cinepro]

I'm not so sure Joseph couldn't have been the 2nd product of a virginal conception. Hell, we all know that he did more for the salvation of mankind save Jesus.

That's a good point. After all, who knows more about the Virgin Mary than a nun?

[_maklelan]

You speak of objectivity, but the apologetic responses to Joseph Smith's actions and traits are anything but objective.

A flippant and broad generalization. Not very convincing.

You guys unabashedly admit that you have testimonies that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet of God, and that you had this unshakeable testimony already when confronting the historical evidence. Given your unwillingness to be convinceable, much less convinced, that Joseph Smith wasn't really what he claimed to be, how can you claim you really are looking for objectivity?

You're again presupposing exactly what it means to believe he was a prophet, and it is based exclusively on your own subjective observations and feelings.

I don't know every aspect of your testimony, so I will make an assumption here, and beg you to correct me if I'm wrong.

I assume that, like every other LDS apologist I've ever spoken to or whose words I have read, you would claim to have had experiences which you interpreted as being a God confirming the truth of the LDS church to you by the medium of another being called the Holy Ghost.

This being the case (or not - if I'm wrong please correct me), are you willing to consider that your interpretation of your spiritual experiences may have been mistaken, and that they really weren't God confirming the truth of the LDS church to you, if the historical evidence were to show that it really was a purely manmade organization?

I would be willing to consider that if I came across a reason to, but ever since I arrived at that conclusion I have only ever found confirmation of my beliefs and perspective. I've yet to have an experience or learn something that constituted any kind of conflict with my worldview.

Anticipating an impossibly high raising of the goal posts, let me simplify by asking whether you are willing to reconsider your interpretation of your spiritual experiences at all, under any circumstances?

Of course.

Would you entertain such a reconsideration of the spiritual basis for your testimony if a "reasonable man" test of the historical evidence, as we have it today, leaned towards the church being a purely manmade organization, and Joseph Smith not having really been a true prophet of a God?

I don't think you could possibly construct a test that could accurately determine there was absolutely no divine influence in the development of the church without first presupposing it or making rather broad assumptions about just what would evidence divine influence. The nature of Joseph Smith's alleged call as a prophet is even less likely to be ascertainable through modern historical methodologies, as you first need to be able to determine what actions or events legitimize such a call. I imagine you reject outright that possibility. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Please note that I'm not asking you to agree that the "reasonable man" test does in fact lean this way - I'm only asking whether you would be open to a reconsideration of the basis of your testimony if it were?

I'd be surprised if such a text actually engaged my perspective on the influence of God in the church, but I wouldn't be opposed to reconsidering my perspective.

Please be as direct in your answer as you can be, and take as many words as you need to express your true thoughts on the matter, so that I am left in no doubt of where you stand.

I have had no experiences that have given me a real reason to question my testimony and my understanding of the nature of God's influence in this world and in his church. If I were to come across something that made me question my perspective I would be happy to embrace it. Just know this isn't the first time someone has asked me these questions.

I don't assert that Joseph Smith was all bad.

It certainly comes across that way.

I'm sure Joseph had some admirable qualities, and was nice to some people, and helped people sometimes, and didn't kick his dog every time he came home, etc. I'm sure he loved Emma in his own peculiar way, loved his kids, etc. You set up a strawman when you try to portray me as one who wishes to set up Joseph Smith as nothing but a horrible monster.

You've twice called him a degenerate bastard (in so many words). What separates that from "horrible monster" in your mind?

Notwithstanding Joseph's good qualities, whatever they were, I also believe that he had some very, very nasty qualities as well. He lied to his wife, many of his associates, the public, etc. about the fact that he was seducing dozens of women right under their very noses.

The evidence doesn't fully support the conclusion that he was "Seducing dozens of women," and you don't know the extent to which he hid what he was doing, why he was doing it, or how he felt about doing it. Hopefully your ethical framework recognizes that if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God with specific commandments of his own, there would naturally arise a great deal of internal conflict, and a number of incredibly difficult decisions.

He made up things he thought his followers wanted to hear on many occasions, including regarding the provenance of human remains, papyrus documents, copper plates, piles of stones, and the origin of various native peoples. He lied to and manipulated people.

Again, you're presupposing a lot of stuff that I don't find self-evident or particularly supported by the evidence.

Have I never, ever done anything wrong at all? Of course I have. The difference here is that I never set myself up as the one and only person on planet Earth with the authority to speak on behalf of a supreme, cosmic creator, and with the authority to tell others on Earth what this Creator wants them to do, and require them to obey me.

And how do you think you would act if you were put in such a situation and given commandments that conflicted with your worldview or put you in situations where you felt you were hurting a loved one? Do you deny that such could be the case with a calling like his, or do you outright reject the supernatural?

Even the New Testament, the veracity of whose many different accounts I am highly skeptical of, offers us the promise that by a prophet's fruits we may know whether or not they were a true prophet or not. And by Joseph Smith's actions, I believe it's pretty clear that he was not really a true prophet.

No, based on your interpretation of your perspective concerning Joseph Smith's actions, you conclude it conflicts with your interpretation of the requirement set forth in the New Testament, but yours is not the only perspective or interpretation. It's not that black and white, and I'm surprised that you who condemns others for a lack of objectivity are really trying to reduce it to this.

And if I'd seduced several dozen women behind my wife's back, and people found out about it and broadcast that over the internet, I might be upset about that, but I'd know that in reality, I really was a shameless bastard. You really can't appeal my sense of fair play here with regards to Joseph Smith and the comparison with myself. I've never set myself up as a Prophet, I've never told people that obedience to my words was required for their spiritual salvation. I have never been the "founding father", as it were, of a movement with several million active members who still, 170-odd years after my death are fawning all over a whitewashed memory of me.

So because he had such a prominent position he's not allowed to expect some understanding?

Joseph Smith's life and actions, and motives (as far as we can divine them) are as fair game as those of David Koresh, Marshall Applewhite, Jim Jones, the Baghwan Shree Rajneesh, Ayatollah Khomeini, King Henry VIII, Pope Benedict, the Dalai Lama, or anyone else who ever set themselves up as some kind of intermediary between the rest of us and the supposed Creator of the Entire Universe.

I didn't say they weren't fair game, I just said the game actually has to be fair.

You're putting the cart before the horse. I wished to see the memory of Joseph Smith exalted for many years. In fact, like many others, I worked hard on a full-time mission for two years and tried my best to convert as many other people to this set of beliefs as I could. I paid my 10%, went to the temple and tried my best to do work that would lead to the relief of some who had passed before, etc. I only denigrate the memory of Joseph Smith now because I have come to believe that his actions were truly worth denigrating.

I never said you're not allowed to criticize him, but I am asking for a larger degree of objectivity.

I don't look at evidence regarding Joseph Smith and look for a way to use it against him. I see evidence that Joseph Smith was a corrupt individual who lied to and mislead a great many people into a belief system and worldview which is manmade, and which does not correspond to reality.

But your perspective on reality and on Joseph Smith's life is just as subjective as anyone else's.

You just avoided the question, but did not answer it.

Because it's based on a false premise. I'm not obligated to answer a faulty question just because someone asks it. I feel I explained that quite clearly.

Please, I'm begging you, review my questions earlier in this thread, and answer them openly and honestly.

I have. They're not the answers you were looking for, but the questions aren't legitimate.

Please do not try to weasle out of answering the question, please do not dodge the question and answer the question "I should have asked" instead, and so forth. The bottom line is this: are you, even in theory, convinceable that your testimony of Joseph Smith is wrong, under any proposed set of circumstances?

Under a logical set of circumstances I would be, but you've proposed purely fallacious premises.

And, do you not approach Joseph Smith history and the evidence we have of his actions, from the point of view that he was a true Prophet, and that the evidence cannot possibly show that he wasn't?

No.

[_collegeterrace]

You speak of objectivity, but the apologetic responses to Joseph Smith's actions and traits are anything but objective.

A flippant and broad generalization. Not very convincing.

Hello? Followers of Joseph Smith's religion cannot come to ANY conclusion that places him in a bad light. You as a member are simply not allowed to do so, otherwise you will be considered a heretic, or worse, an ANTI Mormon.

Remember, to become a Mormon, BEFORE you accept Jesus, you must first accept Joseph Smith as a divine prophet of God. Then you may accept Jesus --as long as it is the Mormon/Joseph Smith version of him.

To remain a Mormon, you must always look at Joseph as a divine prophet of god.

It is virtually impossible for an active member to be objective about old Joe.

Why do you wear the masonic matching top and bottom Jesus jammies? Because you were told that God said so to old Joe. Try not wearing them and making that public to your Happy Valley ward.

[_Jason Bourne]

Remember, to become a Mormon, BEFORE you accept Jesus, you must first accept Joseph Smith as a divine prophet of God. Then you may accept Jesus --as long as it is the Mormon/Joseph Smith version of him.

Actually technically this is not correct. The baptism interview asks first if a person has faith isn and a testimony of God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost and then if they have faith in Christ's atonement. They are then asked if they have testimony of the restoration through Joseph Smith. The temple recommend questions follow the same order but the question about the restoration does not mention Joseph Smith specifically.

[_Yong Xi]

I would be willing to consider that if I came across a reason to, but ever since I arrived at that conclusion I have only ever found confirmation of my beliefs and perspective. I've yet to have an experience or learn something that constituted any kind of conflict with my worldview.

My worldview is in a constant state of flux. I can't imagine never having it challenged to the point of only confirming my beliefs. I thank God (or whoever, whatever or nothing) that I don't have "the truth". If I should ever find it, I hope I have the good sense to give it up.

[_maklelan]

Hello? Followers of Joseph Smith's religion cannot come to ANY conclusion that places him in a bad light. You as a member are simply not allowed to do so, otherwise you will be considered a heretic, or worse, an ANTI Mormon.

Another flippant and broad generalization, only quite a bit more ridiculous.

Remember, to become a Mormon, BEFORE you accept Jesus, you must first accept Joseph Smith as a divine prophet of God. Then you may accept Jesus --as long as it is the Mormon/Joseph Smith version of him.

That's not true at all. Baptismal interviews and temple recommend interviews all ask if you have faith in Jesus Christ and his atonement, and only later ask if you have a testimony of the restoration.

To remain a Mormon, you must always look at Joseph as a divine prophet of god.

The church has never in its entire history allowed people to look at Joseph Smith as divine.

It is virtually impossible for an active member to be objective about old Joe.

That's not true, it's just a matter of degrees. You can be perfectly frank and open about his flaws as a human.

Why do you wear the masonic matching top and bottom Jesus jammies?

Because they serve as a constant reminder of the covenants I made in the temple.

Because you were told that God said so to old Joe. Try not wearing them and making that public to your Happy Valley ward.

Why would I care about what they think? Especially if I reject the tenets of that faith?

[_Gadianton]

The church has never in its entire history allowed people to look at Joseph Smith as divine.

Well then Sally H. Barlow, professor of psychology at BYU, Gospel Doctrine teacher, and mother in Zion should be excommunicated or warned for her sacrilege:

I know that Joseph Smith was a divine prophet of God, that he was chosen before the Creation to be a special witness of Christ

http://ce.BYU.edu/cw/womensconference/a ... _sally.htm

[_maklelan]

The church has never in its entire history allowed people to look at Joseph Smith as divine.

Well then Sally H. Barlow, professor of psychology at BYU, Gospel Doctrine teacher, and mother in Zion should be excommunicated or warned for her sacrilege:

I know that Joseph Smith was a divine prophet of God, that he was chosen before the Creation to be a special witness of Christ

http://ce.BYU.edu/cw/womensconference/a ... _sally.htm

You know as well as I that she was just bearing an emotional testimony at women's conference and not trying to aver that Joseph Smith was divinity. It would be prudent to let her know that people will knowingly misrepresent what she's said because of their cynicism and antagonism toward the church, but she's committed no sacrilege. You know very well the church does not at all condone the idea that Joseph Smith was anything more than a man with a divine calling, and your unearthing an incredibly irrelevant and obscure reference to try to make it appear otherwise only manifests how much you're willing to overlook common sense in order to feel like you're a smarter person.

If that's the little carrot that you're groping for then take it and go away: You're better than Mormons. You're smarter than Mormons. Mormons are dishonest, cognitively dissonant, and intellectually corrupt. We all know deep down that our church isn't true, but we have to keep up appearances so we don't get shunned by our friends and family, fired from our jobs, kicked out of our homes, and sneered at at restaurants. Please don't tell on me.

[_collegeterrace]

You know as well as I that she was just bearing an emotional testimony at women's conference and not trying to aver that Joseph Smith was divinity. It would be prudent to let her know that people will knowingly misrepresent what she's said because of their cynicism and antagonism toward the church, but she's committed no sacrilege. You know very well the church does not at all condone the idea that Joseph Smith was anything more than a man with a divine calling, and your unearthing an incredibly irrelevant and obscure reference to try to make it appear otherwise only manifests how much you're willing to overlook common sense in order to feel like you're a smarter person.

If that's the little carrot that you're groping for then take it and go away: You're better than Mormons. You're smarter than Mormons. Mormons are dishonest, cognitively dissonant, and intellectually corrupt. We all know deep down that our church isn't true, but we have to keep up appearances so we don't get shunned by our friends and family, fired from our jobs, kicked out of our homes, and sneered at at restaurants. Please don't tell on me.

I use the term divine in place of "TRUE", the over used term that we all hear far too often within LDS circles. I use it in the context of "of, from". As a member, I really despised the rote LDS term "TRUE prophet", as well as true church, this is true, true this, that and the other...

by the way, thanks for an excellent siggy line.