A conversation with Stan Barker of SHIELDS

[_why me]

I've said this before, and I'm going to be saying this again, in various different ways, until the end of time:

The Mormon Church is not only not true, it's obviously not true. The reason this is not obvious to diehard Mormons is the true crux of the matter.

I look forward to seeing your conclusive evidence that Mormonism is false. I am sure that the world will wait for your evidence with bated breath. Now that you claimed that it is not true, can you produce the conclusive evidence, the cruncher that will bring the LDS church to its knees?

No, I didn't think so. Now if you repeat what you wrote a hundred times what your said just may be true...if only in your mind.

[_why me]

The Mormon Church is not only not true, it's obviously not true. The reason this is not obvious to diehard Mormons is the true crux of the matter.

Once again, the gospel truth spoken by Sethbag. I have never heard it put so clearly. This is why I keep coming back to the these boards! It is not to fight, it is because of this nagging question. How can they not see it? How did I not see it? I mean, it is so obvious!

Excellent point.

Yes, truly excellent. I think that sethbag should be awarded the exmormon's highest honor at the exmo conference: the William Law Citation for Blarney. Or you can ask Jeff to make him an honorary member of the postmormon morg.

[_Kishkumen]

I look forward to seeing your conclusive evidence that Mormonism is false. I am sure that the world will wait for your evidence with bated breath. Now that you claimed that it is not true, can you produce the conclusive evidence, the cruncher that will bring the LDS church to its knees?

That an organization based on falsehoods can thrive is no miracle. There is a sucker born every minute. No one needs to prove false that which lacks any persuasive evidence of being true. Good feelings may be sufficient proof for you, but your feelings do not determine what is real for everyone.

[_silentkid]

I look forward to seeing your conclusive evidence that scientology is false. I am sure that the world will wait for your evidence with bated breath. Now that you claimed that it is not true, can you produce the conclusive evidence, the cruncher that will bring scientology to its knees?

I reworded your quote (italicized words mine) for you so maybe, just maybe, you might get it.

Now if you repeat what you wrote a hundred times what your said just may be true...if only in your mind.

A perfect description of the Mormon testimony. Maybe you are finally getting it, why me.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Well. The Book of Mormon seems to be the keystone to the LDS faith. Therefore, if one wishes to test the veracity of Mormon cosmology, one needs to focus on the "seer" ability of Joseph Smith. If the Book of Mormon is true, it starts a ball rolling and the momentum of the ball carries faith to Thomas S. If someone finds an instance parallel to the Book of Mormon paradigm (i.e. records, probably divinely guided to the hat of Joseph Smith, being correctly translated.

The first instance. The Book of Mormon. The plates cannot be produced to be cross checked, therefore no direct verification is possible. Possible.

Second instance. The Book of Abraham. The facsimiles were shown to be misinterpreted. When the large part of the scrolls show up, they are shown to be misinterpreted. Fail.

Third instance. Kinderhook. False plates given to Joseph Smith. Joseph Smith begins translation. They turn out to be fake. Fail.

Fourth instance. The Greek thing. Although a totally unverifiable story, it fits the pattern. If the Book of Mormon is accepted as possible then this story should be as well. Or not, doesn't matter. Fail.

Score it. 1 possible example, 3 false ones that weren't even close or on the same planet. Although nothing can be proven in an absolute sense, we can reasonably conclude Joseph Smith was as much a prophet as I am (remember I am Warren Jeffs).

No?

I told my paleography professor that I can read and write every form of futhark and deserve to be accredited from the University. My proof, he asks.

Instance one. I translated an extensive manuscript from a stone I found then busted up into gravel with a hammer. Possible.

Instance two. In order to verify my claim, he gives me another slab. I translate it as a story of Hrolf the Ugly, a crossdressing Viking who visited Kensington, Minnesota. My professor informs me I was wrong and that it was a shopping list (horns, helmet, glue...).

Instance three. My professor now rightly suspects I am not what I claim to be, but based on the years we have spent together tests me again. He carves up another tablet. I translate it and it turns out it is about three fairies in paleolithic times conducting an interesting conversation about gay marriage. Wrong again. This time my professor had carved random symbols on the slab.

Instance four. My professor writes a single rune on a piece of paper and asks me what sound it produces. I tell him it is upside down but means "pbbbbbbbbt."

Now tell me, should my professor certify me? Yes! With a special jacket.

Why me, if this does not qualify as proof of the world bending proof you crave, nothing could. Nothing. I think you should accept that, retain your faith, and live the best life and become one of those Mormons that every single person on this board has come to love and respect. Stop, stop, stop, trying to speak reason on this.

with warmest regard, and absolute best intentions,

ND

[_Sethbag]

I've said this before, and I'm going to be saying this again, in various different ways, until the end of time:

The Mormon Church is not only not true, it's obviously not true. The reason this is not obvious to diehard Mormons is the true crux of the matter.

I look forward to seeing your conclusive evidence that Mormonism is false. I am sure that the world will wait for your evidence with bated breath. Now that you claimed that it is not true, can you produce the conclusive evidence, the cruncher that will bring the LDS church to its knees?

You've already seen way more than enough evidence. Rather than accept the obvious conclusion, instead you neutered the evidence, and looked for ways of reinterpreting it such that the conclusion finally reached is the one you already believed to be true. This is what I'm talking about.

If you don't believe me, just go find a diehard Jehovah's Witness and show them just how obviously manmade their church is. Only very rarely will you find one who finally agrees with you - to them it's so obvious that their church really is the organization of Jehovah on Earth it's not even funny. I guarantee you they will come up with a way of addressing and explaining away any possible evidence you could possibly come up with that cast doubt on the validity of their claims.

Or go do this with a diehard Catholic. Or a diehard Muslim. Or a diehard Scientologist. All of these faiths and/or churches are obviously manmade, but this is far from obvious to the diehard adherents of these faiths.

The $64,000 question to you is: why not?

Why isn't it obvious to Tom Cruise that Scientology is a manmade organization whose teachings bear no resemblance to reality?

This is a very important question, Why Me. I will ask it again:

Why isn't it obvious to Tom Cruise that Scientology is just another manmade, false religion?

Why not, Why Me? What is it about Tom Cruise's faith, and the practice of his faith, that has rendered his mind incapable of seeing what is so clear to the rest of us, including (hopefully) you?

And why isn't it obvious to the Jehovah's Witness whom you let in the door and talk with for a while that their church is likewise a manmade, not-true organization?

Why not, Why Me? What is it about the faith, and the practice of that faith, by Jehovah's Witnesses that renders their minds incapable of seeing what is so clear to everyone else, including (hopefully) you?

What is it about Osama bin Laden's faith, and his religious practice, that has rendered his mind incapable of seeing just how manmade and false his religious beliefs are?

There has got to be something that can account for this.

And I believe there is. Let's call it the "X Factor", and define it loosely as "those beliefs and practices which render the believer incapable of perceiving the not-literally-true, manmade nature of their chosen belief system, even when these characteristics are so obvious to everyone else".

Why cannot such an X Factor, or a tailored-to-Mormonism version of it, be in operation on you? It's fairly obvious that those believers operating under their own faith-specific X Factors don't recognize their condition as such - what makes you think you're immune to it, and would recognize if it you weren't?

If you can accept even the possibility of a Mormon X Factor which renders diehard Mormons incapable of viewing the evidence in a way that allows them to recognize the manmade nature of the church, then that is a good start. The rest will come as you start to untangle that X Factor in your mind and start learning what exactly has been going on in your mind, so that you can change it, and start viewing the world unfiltered by it.

If you can manage that, you will someday come back and say "wow, Seth, you were right! The Mormon church isn't just not true, it's obviously not true!" Because it is.

No, I didn't think so. Now if you repeat what you wrote a hundred times what your said just may be true...if only in your mind.

As Silentkid already said, ironically this is a part of the X Factor. Repetition of an idea actually reprograms your mind in such a way as to strengthen that idea. As Dan Dennet said once in a talk I watched on the web, "every time you say or think an idea, you make another copy of it in your brain." And that's literally true, at the neuronal level. It's why "practice makes perfect", or at least "practice makes permanent". Testimony meeting anyone? Read the Book of Mormon at least once a year for your entire lifetime, anyone? You-must-go-to-church-every-week-almost-no-matter-what for your entire lifetime, anyone?

[_John Larsen]

Yes, truly excellent. I think that sethbag should be awarded the exmormon's highest honor at the exmo conference: the William Law Citation for Blarney. Or you can ask Jeff to make him an honorary member of the postmormon morg.

I see that your crash and burn on that board has left deep scars.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Gee, is Barker going to clarify his views? Or can we safely assume that he is still smarting from having gotten his butt kicked by Dr. Shades?

[_why me]

Yes, truly excellent. I think that sethbag should be awarded the exmormon's highest honor at the exmo conference: the William Law Citation for Blarney. Or you can ask Jeff to make him an honorary member of the postmormon morg.

I see that your crash and burn on that board has left deep scars.

No, not really. But Jeff is an active player in the exmormon world with billboards etc. I also don't like the way that they define postmormonism. It leaves many out. I saw that site in a more intellectual light when I first discovered it. I took the post word to mean the same as in the academic world: an embracing of aspects of Mormonism but also a moving on to a new direction. For example as post-marxists, post-feminists or post-modernists do.

However, Jeff's site thrived and continue to thrive on negatives and rejected the positive. In other words, to be postmormon must mean to see the LDS church negatively. My definition is: see it critically, embrace the good, and extend it to new directions.

Thus, Jeff ruined a wonderful word in my humbe opinion.

[_why me]

You've already seen way more than enough evidence. Rather than accept the obvious conclusion, instead you neutered the evidence, and looked for ways of reinterpreting it such that the conclusion finally reached is the one you already believed to be true. This is what I'm talking about.

I haven't seen enough evidence. I cannot speak for a diehard catholic, but I know many of them. And I cannot speak for the others also. I am really not that concerned about it. But I haven't seen the conclusive evidence that the church is false. Now what I have seen is that what the LDS church represents has much truth in it, especially in how to do life. Also, looking into the early beginnings of Mormonism with the wítnesses and emma and sidney, plus Joseph Senior and his wife...I see much that is faith building. The early Mormon story has many unbelieveables in it. It is unbelieveable that 11 people never retracted their testimony. It is unblelieveable that emma after all she went through never just came out and said that the LDS church is false. Instead, her children were raised to believe the Bible and the Book of Mormon. And of course, no one to my knowledge saw Joe with feathered pen in hand writing a document that would become the Book of Mormon. Nor did anyone ever say that good ol' joe bought a lot of paper for his manucript. This is not something that one can keep secret for too long.

And so, I am a fundamental kind of person. I look at the simplicity of it all in the very beginning and wonder just how he did it if he were a fraud and at this moment, I cannot see how.