Joseph Smith Megathread

[_Willy Law]

So, just because there were some things about Adolf Hitler that Person A left out--like Hitler's other career trajectories, for example--Then Simon Belmont doesn't believe that the kid was lied to?

Here is Richard Packham's take on Dr. Shade's point. Referring to Brigham Young and the Brigham Young manual. Simon please pay attention to the end of the section, where the church specifically tells teachers that the original source material should not be used and is not necessary. Huh? Why would the church not want teachers and members looking at original source material?
Again, please remember that the church's own definition of lying says: We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth.

by the way the current manual used in EQ and Relief Society no longer has the original reference's.

The Teaching Manual "Teachings of Brigham Young"

In 1997 the church published a lesson manual of about 370 pages for use of its adult members in their weekly class meetings for the coming year. It was called Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young. It caused an immediate sensation, both in the non-Mormon world and among knowledgeable Mormons, because it did not accurately reflect either the man's life or his teachings, its editors obviously endeavoring to gloss over - or even omit completely - what many new or potential converts might find surprising or even objectionable.
For example, although the Mormon church was known throughout the world for its practice of polygamy during Young's entire leadership of the church, and although Young was a devout defender, proponent, and practitioner of polygamy, no mention is made of polygamy in this book, either of the doctrine itself, or of Young's harem of wives. Wherever Young is quoted on the subject of domestic relations, when he mentioned "wives" in his sermons, the editors have substituted "[wife]."

In the one-page "Historical Summary" which lists the supposedly important events of Young's life (page vii), beginning with his birth and concluding with his death, the editors list the coming of the railroad, the organization of the Mutual Improvement Associations, and his role in the building of two temples, but there is not a hint of Young's 52 wives, his 15 divorces/separations, or his 55 children. (For a listing, click here). Nor is any mention of Young's polygamy to be found in Chapter 1, "The Ministry of Brigham Young," even though on page 6 the opportunity was ideal:

Before the [Nauvoo] temple was completed, Joseph Smith privately introduced President Young and other members of the Twelve to temple ordinances, including baptism for the dead, the temple endowment, and family sealings...
Not a word about "plural marriage."
Nor is any mention made in this manual of Young's doctrines of Adam as God, of "Blood Atonement," or of his anti-Negro doctrines.

In the introduction of this church lesson manual, the editors caution against readers consulting source materials:

"...the sources [of the extracts from Young's sermons] will not be readily available to most members. These original sources are not necessary to have in order to effectively study or teach from this book. Members need not purchase additional references and commentaries to study or teach these chapters. The text provided in this book, accompanied by the scriptures [the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price], is sufficient for instruction."
Thus, a completely inaccurate picture of Brigham Young is being promulgated by the church.

From Richard Packham's Mormon Lying
http://packham.n4m.org/lying.htm

[_Simon Belmont]

It is a historical fact that Adolf Hitler was an exceptional painter in the watercolor medium. Now, let's say Person A has a young child who shows interest in painting and art from an early age. If Person A was to show his/her kid as many of Hitler's watercolor paintings as he/she could find, and then the kid likes what he sees and begins to idolize Hitler, then Simon Belmont thinks that Person A hasn't "blindsided" the kid, since Person A taught him the literal truth?

So, just because there were some things about Adolf Hitler that Person A left out--like Hitler's other career trajectories, for example--Then Simon Belmont doesn't believe that the kid was lied to?

If you replace Hitler with Bob Ross, and replace watercolor with oil paintings, your analogy would be correct. It would not be a lie to teach a young child who is interested in oil painting about the painting style of Bob Ross without delving into his love of wildlife, his pet squirrels etc. The child can find out more about that on his or her own.

[_Doctor Scratch]

It is a historical fact that Adolf Hitler was an exceptional painter in the watercolor medium. Now, let's say Person A has a young child who shows interest in painting and art from an early age. If Person A was to show his/her kid as many of Hitler's watercolor paintings as he/she could find, and then the kid likes what he sees and begins to idolize Hitler, then Simon Belmont thinks that Person A hasn't "blindsided" the kid, since Person A taught him the literal truth?

So, just because there were some things about Adolf Hitler that Person A left out--like Hitler's other career trajectories, for example--Then Simon Belmont doesn't believe that the kid was lied to?

If you replace Hitler with Bob Ross, and replace watercolor with oil paintings, your analogy would be correct. It would not be a lie to teach a young child who is interested in oil painting about the painting style of Bob Ross without delving into his love of wildlife, his pet squirrels etc. The child can find out more about that on his or her own.

That doesn't work, Simon. It's hard to think of anything objectionable about Bob Ross, which is why your revised analogy fails so spectacularly. The material that the Church has tended to leave out of discussions is generally objectionable or problematic in some way: e.g., polygamy/polyandry, Joseph Smith's destruction of the printing press, Kirtland Bank scandal, Kinderhook plates, Zelph, MMM, Blood Atonement, etc., etc., etc.

Seriously, Simon, the sort of intellectual dishonesty on display here from you is troubling. I would have to double-check, but I'm fairly certain that Cassius U. has a "three strikes" policy when it comes to this kind of thing. One more gross display of intellectual dishonesty from you and your Visiting Professorship may very well get revoked.

[_Simon Belmont]

That doesn't work, Simon. It's hard to think of anything objectionable about Bob Ross, which is why your revised analogy fails so spectacularly. The material that the Church has tended to leave out of discussions is generally objectionable or problematic in some way: e.g., polygamy/polyandry, Joseph Smith's destruction of the printing press, Kirtland Bank scandal, Kinderhook plates, Zelph, MMM, Blood Atonement, etc., etc., etc.

Ah, but there are in fact criticisms of Bob Ross

Several criticisms have been leveled against the Bob Ross method.

• Students' paintings tend to all look like Bob Ross's.
  
  • Ross tended to paint from his imagination, rather than from a careful study of nature. His trees, for instance, are not accurate depictions of real trees.
    
    • Ross offered a series of clever techniques, but no advice for improving or expanding artistically. His own work remained pretty much the same throughout his life.

This is obviously problematic for Bob Ross students, but not harmful to them. Much like some of the history of the Church is problematic, but not actually harmful to anyone. If I were a lesser man, I would report this to Dean Robbers for your first strike of intellectual dishonesty.

Seriously, Simon, the sort of intellectual dishonesty on display here from you is troubling.

I would have to double-check, but I'm fairly certain that Cassius U. has a "three strikes" policy when it comes to this kind of thing. One more gross display of intellectual dishonesty from you and your Visiting Professorship may very well get revoked.

You do not speak for Cassuis (although I know you and Dean Robbers are quite close friends). If there were a three strikes policy, you would be dismissed long ago. Luckily for you, Cassius encourages academic diversity and differing points of view and instruction methods. If it didn't, I would not want to be part of it anyway.

[_thews]

Note to the critical thought process… this is how a brainwashed mind works:
Why does one need to “study more” to find the truth?

Why does one need to "study more" to find out more detail about anything? For example, one of my early courses in classics was a survey-style class, where we learned of many subjects in classics, but not much detail about any particular subject.

I was enthralled with the fertile crescent, so I decided to read more about it on my own. I went to a library and checked out a few books and learned a lot more than was presented in class.

I suppose some members of this forum would say that my professor lied to me, but how incredibly silly a notion.

The LDS church prints lies about the translation method. The LDS church hides the magical seer stones that the apologists “conflate” with the term Urim and Thummim.

Wow! I just read about the seer stones in an Ensign article the other day!

The LDS church hides the papyrus used to “translate” the Book of Abraham.

LOL, you really are ignorant, aren't you?

One doesn’t need to “study more” to discount the mistruth,

If they think it is not truth, they certainly need to study more.

one only needs to acknowledge the deception the Mormon church uses to hide the truth.

I suppose you think that "deception" means "not giving students every detail about everything in Church history and teachings in one hour." LOL.

Note to the critical thought process… this is called circular reasoning. The example has nothing to do with discounting bad information.

Neither does the example of Church leaders. Unless, of course, you can show otherwise.

Show me one picture of Joseph Smith with his head in his hat using a seer stone in a Mormon publication.

LOL! I suppose you think that this is an actual photograph of deoxyribonucleic acid?


Yet this was shown to science classes. Those LIARS!

LOL, get a life, man!

I can show you many with the “finger on book” that never happened. [/quote]

Oh, he never put his finger on a book? You were there to witness this? Give me a break.

This is an absolute lie. What Simon determines is “readily available” is only available through so-called “anti” Mormon sites. Mormon sites deleted the true history and distort the truth. Willy was lied to, just as 99% of Mormons are today.

It was somehow available to the anti-Mormons. Hmmm, it certainly makes one wonder. Do you expect the Church to deliver their entire archives to your door?

Note to the critical thought process… this is how a brainwashed mind appeases its cognitive dissonance. Using Simon’s logic, the church leaders “left some things out” doesn’t mean they lied.

Nope, because they didn't leave anything out that I couldn't easily find out on my own (which I did, repeatedly). They teach from the manual.

Preaching gospel that’s true doesn’t require that truth be omitted. By abstention of the truth, the lie is a distorted version of the truth. Simon Belmont is a liar, but justifies lying by teaching partial truth to itching ears.

Then what are you? What cause do you champion?

Truth. Peace. Respect.

You equate using occult seer stones to deliver the so-called “Christian” doctrine of a false prophet as “so what” in its significance.

From where did the "occult" get the seer stone idea?

Are you that ignorant? If Joseph Smith used a Ouija board to “translate” the pagan book of the dead, would this also be a “so what” level of relevance?

Well, now there's a question! If Joseph murdered 50,000 people would I still believe him?

Your contradiction shows the brainwashed level your distorted sense of reality has taught your mind to discount truth to appease the cognitive dissonance.

And you were brainwashed to leave the Church.

On one hand, you claim, “Being lied to is being deliberately deceived.” On the other, you claim, “Just because there were some things that were left out doesn't mean you were lied to!”

Those statements are not contradictions.

Your contradictions make sense to you, because you need them to make sense. The occult magic believed in by Joe Smith to dupe people into believing his lies to convey false doctrine connected to Jesus Christ are being preached by you as the truth.

Only because it is. Your use of the word "occult" is meant to scare people, but it really just means "hidden." Knock off the lies.

Sleep well Simon Belmont, as this domain is defined by the truth if you subscribe to the Bible, and you are preacher to itching ears… a liar. Your motive is personal gain… you need it to be true.

Please, tell me more about myself. What do I gain, personally?

It’s sad though… your own brainwashed sense of self can’t even see simple contradiction.

How poetic, from a brainwashed anti-Mormon.

More twisted circular reasoning.

And you have demonstrated more than necessary that you have absolutely no clue what circular reasoning is.

How about, “Well I don’t know anyone who is perfect, so how can we hold Joseph Smith to perfection?”

Indeed, how about it?

How about, “Well, there are faults in the Bible, so it makes sense there are faults in Mormonism too.”

Yes yes, how about it?

In reality, Joseph Smith was very bad person and a dubious con man.

What a claim! Too bad you have no way to back it up.

Using his power to marry other men’s wives and little 14 and 15 year old girls is not something one should use a metric of perfection to gauge.

Uh huh . . . go on. This has been dealt with to infinity.

How far do you need to move to goalposts to score your supposed point. You are brainwashed Simon Belmont and cannot think critically.

You are a brainwashed anti-Mormon.

You lie to appease what you need to be true, so that others will join you in ignorance of the truth. Sleep well Simon Belmont. If there’s one thing the Bible is very clear about it’s God disdain for liars. When your life is done, any who listened to your lies and chose the path of deception will hang on your head.

Wow! Now you're essentially damning me. By what authority?

Note to the critical thought process… this is a fine example of a brainwashed Mormon’s mindset. Much like Pahoran, Simon’s blathering without addressing the issues is transparent in its intent, which is to make responding to the tap dance so exhausting it’s easier to walk away from the train wreck of circular reasoning. I especially love the inserting of the off topic image in a lame attempt to imply Simon is intelligent, so his BS arguments failing to address the questions asked or the data somehow carries weight. If you are impressed by this, I suggest you visit Mormon scholars testify.

To the point that the Mormon church lies by depicting Joe Smith translating with his “finger on book” method, Simon’s response is that Joe Smith must have put his finger on a book at some point, so the circular reasoning is then connected and his cognitive dissonance is appeased. What isn’t acknowledged as Simon continues to muddy the waters of what does or doesn’t constitute a lie, is that the only method Joe Smith used to translate his supposed gold plates is an occult seer stone out of a hat. Simon is what is known as a false witness, but it’s not his fault… it’s how the Mormon cult brainwashes people. This is why one reference to the papyrus is a clear indication to him that the church is forthcoming with the truth, but notice Simon didn’t address the fact that the KEP have not been released for critical examination.

In the end Simon, your twisted tap dance of BS to dilute the fact that you are a byproduct of the Mormon cult and lying to someone is in the best interest of the people being lied to, I find people like you interesting. People like you know the truth, yet they’ve convinced themselves the truth is a lie. Unlike a person who has been sheltered from the truth by the Mormon cult, your brain has found a way to lie to you in a convincing manner. Under the guise of what is wholesome and good, those values override the truth when balancing the scales. It’s sad there are people like you out there using the same tired spin doctoring techniques, but the truth can only be kept a secret for so long. As missionaries are oblivious to the truth (ask any missionary about the papyrus or seer stones and you’ll see the glazed look in their eyes), the younger generation is only a click away from the truth. Brainwashed people like you who present a false witness to convince others to share in your ignorance must also employ your mental gymnastics, and while you’ll find them in your local Mormon church, those capable of critical thought can distinguish a truth from a lie, so your distortion will be wasted furthering the cause of your false prophet of God. Sleep well Simon… those magic rocks you place faith in requires magical thinking, which would define how intelligent you really are, as opposed to what you pretend to be. You like to you LOL a lot to make your responses seem funny, but one look in the mirror asking yourself why you lie doesn't seem funny... at least not to me, but then again I'm not brainwashed.

[_Simon Belmont]

Note to the critical thought process… this is a fine example of a brainwashed Mormon’s mindset. Much like Pahoran, Simon’s blathering without addressing the issues is transparent in its intent, which is to make responding to the tap dance so exhausting it’s easier to walk away from the train wreck of circular reasoning.

Again, I do not think you understand what circular reasoning is.
It takes the form of A=B, therefore A=B.
If you can point out where I've used actual circular reasoning, it would be helpful to your cause.

I especially love the inserting of the off topic image in a lame attempt to imply Simon is intelligent, so his BS arguments failing to address the questions asked or the data somehow carries weight.

The DNA image is a depiction of DNA. It is basically what the structure of DNA looks like. It is used to show students how DNA works. The pictures of Joseph Smith are depictions of the Prophet translating the Book of Mormon. Because they do not meet your specific needs is irrelevant. They are simply pictures, used to illustrate a teaching.

If you are impressed by this, I suggest you visit Mormon scholars testify.

MST is a wonderful and inspiring site.

To the point that the Mormon church lies by depicting Joe Smith translating with his “finger on book” method, Simon’s response is that Joe Smith must have put his finger on a book at some point, so the circular reasoning is then connected and his cognitive dissonance is appeased.

My point was to illustrate how incredibly silly it is to condemn Joseph Smith and the Church for depicting a "finger on a book" method. I mean, really, who cares?

What isn’t acknowledged as Simon continues to muddy the waters of what does or doesn’t constitute a lie, is that the only method Joe Smith used to translate his supposed gold plates is an occult seer stone out of a hat.

I remind you that occult means "hidden." Your use of the word is to startle and shock people. It is dishonest and wrong.

Joseph Smith did not live in a cultural vacuum! Folk magic was a reality of his day, and just because the Lord decided to use objects he was already familiar with, he should not be damned.

Simon is what is known as a false witness, but it’s not his fault… it’s how the Mormon cult brainwashes people.

Yes, and you have been equally brainwashed by anti-Mormon misrepresentations.

This is why one reference to the papyrus is a clear indication to him that the church is forthcoming with the truth, but notice Simon didn’t address the fact that the KEP have not been released for critical examination.

The KEP is not that big of a deal. It is an interesting artifact from a lost time but that is about it. Do you expect the Church to release every insignificant document, every small artifact, just do you can be satisfied?

In the end Simon, your twisted tap dance of BS to dilute the fact that you are a byproduct of the Mormon cult and lying to someone is in the best interest of the people being lied to, I find people like you interesting.

Likewise, in the end, your twisted tap dance of BS to dilute the fact that you are a byproduct of the anti-Mormon EV Christian cult and lying to someone is in the best interest of the people being lied to, I find people like you interesting.

People like you know the truth,

Yes, we do, and I do.

yet they’ve convinced themselves the truth is a lie.

No, the truth is the truth. Joseph Smith was a prophet of God.

Unlike a person who has been sheltered from the truth by the Mormon cult, your brain has found a way to lie to you in a convincing manner. Under the guise of what is wholesome and good, those values override the truth when balancing the scales. It’s sad there are people like you out there using the same tired spin doctoring techniques, but the truth can only be kept a secret for so long. As missionaries are oblivious to the truth (ask any missionary about the papyrus or seer stones and you’ll see the glazed look in their eyes), the younger generation is only a click away from the truth. Brainwashed people like you who present a false witness to convince others to share in your ignorance must also employ your mental gymnastics, and while you’ll find them in your local Mormon church, those capable of critical thought can disguise truth from a lie, so your distortion will be wasted furthering the cause of your false prophet of God. Sleep well Simon… those magic rocks you place faith in requires magical thinking, which would define how intelligent you really are, as opposed to what you pretend to be.

Wow. You are very angry. And all for nothing, against a Church that you do not understand in the slightest. Your energies could be used for good, but instead you are reduced to hate. I feel very sad for you, as your family and social life is probably suffering a great deal because of all the hate in your heart for an organization that has done nothing to you.

[_Willy Law]

The pictures of Joseph Smith are depictions of the Prophet translating the Book of Mormon. Because they do not meet your specific needs is irrelevant. They are simply pictures, used to illustrate a teaching.

In your opinion why does the church continue to "illustrate a teaching" with a completely inaccurate portrayal? Would you not agree that the church knows that an actual depiction of the translation process (peep stone in hat, face in hat) is completely absurd and non "faith promoting?"

MST is a wonderful and inspiring site.

Really? I mean really?
What do you make of the fact that very few of the scholars actually use terminology that a TBM would consider a testimony? Very few use the phrase "I know" to express their belief. Very few use anything to infer any belief in TSM being a prophet of God. Yet in church our children are brainwashed with exercises such as
"Repeat after me; I know Thomas S. Monson is a prophet of God."

My point was to illustrate how incredibly silly it is to condemn Joseph Smith and the Church for depicting a "finger on a book" method. I mean, really, who cares?

Your favorite phrases seem to be: "who cares" and "it is not an issue".
The fact that these problems are not issues to you or that you do not care is staggering to me. Your assumption that others do not care or take issue shows your ignorance.

[_Doctor Scratch]

That doesn't work, Simon. It's hard to think of anything objectionable about Bob Ross, which is why your revised analogy fails so spectacularly. The material that the Church has tended to leave out of discussions is generally objectionable or problematic in some way: e.g., polygamy/polyandry, Joseph Smith's destruction of the printing press, Kirtland Bank scandal, Kinderhook plates, Zelph, MMM, Blood Atonement, etc., etc., etc.

Ah, but there are in fact criticisms of Bob Ross

I didn't say that there aren't. And I hardly think that differences of opinion on Ross's artwork and influence are objectionable in quite the same sense as, say, polygamy or Blood Atonement.

This is obviously problematic for Bob Ross students, but not harmful to them. Much like some of the history of the Church is problematic, but not actually harmful to anyone.

"[N]Old Testament actually harmful" in what sense? By your logic, your wife could be fooling around behind your back, having sex with multiple partners, and so long as she didn't pass along a life-threatening disease to you, it'd all be fine and dandy, since it wasn't "actually harmful."

[_Darth J]

I think this Bob Ross comparison is misplaced. A more applicable comparison would be Jeff Smith, "The Frugal Gourmet."

[_honorentheos]

Simon -

I don't particularly care for mega-threads as they are often like looking at an MC Escher drawing; as long as one keeps shifting one's gaze around and focusing on small, separated details it becomes easy if not probable to completely miss the impossibility of the overall composition being a viable scene.

That said, I'll toss in a thought on the notion of the church deliberately rewriting it's history in it's curriculum. This is from an OP I penned in April that I would be curious to see you respond to -

The following was brought up in another thread but not explored more fully. I thought it was worth revisiting, if more appropriately in it’s own thread.

When the Joseph Smith Relief Society/PH manual came out a few years ago, a poster on the MAD board pointed out an interesting occurrence where there was missing information in the manual - a portion of a paragraph from the Wentworth Letter.

The missing section, underlined within it's context, says this -

"The whole book exhibited many marks of antiquity in its construction and much skill in the art of engraving. With the records was found a curious instrument which the ancients called "Urim and Thummim," which consisted of two transparent stones set in the rim of a bow fastened to a breastplate. Through the medium of the Urim and Thummim I translated the record by the gift, and power of God. In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the Tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era. We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the Tower of Babel. The second race came directly from the city of Jerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They were principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jaredites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century. The remnant are the Indians that now inhabit this country. This book also tells us that our Savior made his appearance upon this continent after his resurrection, that he planted the gospel here in all its fulness, and richness, and power, and blessing; that they had apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, and evangelists; the same order, the same priesthood, the same ordinances, gifts, powers, and blessings, as was enjoyed on the eastern continent, that the people were cut off in consequence of their transgressions, that the last of their prophets who existed among them was commanded to write an abridgment of their prophecies, history, &c., and to hide it up in the earth, and that it should come forth and be united with the Bible for the accomplishment of the purposes of God in the last days. For a more particular account I would refer to the Book of Mormon, which can be purchased at Nauvoo, or from any of our travelling elders.”

I suspect that most participants on both this and the MAD board can understand why this would be controversial.

What makes this even more interesting is that, other than this section, the entire letter was quoted for use in the manual as one of it’s lessons.

My question, to those who are critical of the view that the church whitewashes it history, is what makes this acceptable to you? Is it because the entire letter is available in other places, for example online where I found the above? Is it that the missing material, potentially questioning whether or not Joseph Smith viewed all native americans as being lamanites, is not important to the gospel overall?

If whitewashing is too strong a word, do you see at least some active attempt to hide something here, or is this just prudent editing on the part of the church?