stemelbow wrote: Of course. But one has to pass off the notion that God told Joseph Smith to practice polygamy as not plausible. of course its not plausible in that context. God is not plausible in that context.
I already said that most non-believers are not looking so much at the idea that God would command polygamy as much as they are at how Joseph went about it. That really is the issue regarding polygamy. This is where the plausibility is looked at. Plus polygamy is one issue of many, and some of the other issues are really much bigger, and I see more of the possibility game being played by apologists.
Buffalo wrote:Hypotheticals seem to come to you pretty easily when it comes to finding ways to maintain faith despite evidence to the contrary of the church's claims.
I'm calling out the notion of disproving something based on poor logic. If possibilities remain then disproof did not occur. Its merely arguing for the position of why someone doesn't believe the church.
That's not true, stem. No matter how well ANYTHING is proven, any number of unlikely possibilities always remain. For example, while it's been proven that smoking causes cancer, it's still technically possible that aliens are somehow giving smokers the cancer to fool the researchers. That's just as likely as any of the hypotheticals you bring up in defense of your faith.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
sock puppet wrote:stem, supposing the Church did accept the Book of Mormon as inspired fiction (rather than die), how would that impact your relationship to the Church?
I don't know. Hypotheticals are tough to answer. Its all make-believe and guessing.
You commented that you thought the Church would go the way of the Gadianton Turn (fictionalize Book of Mormon) rather than fold up its tent. That was a hypothetical.
Is it too personal to ask how that fictionalization would affect your relationship to the LDS Church?
Themis wrote:I already said that most non-believers are not looking so much at the idea that God would command polygamy as much as they are at how Joseph went about it. That really is the issue regarding polygamy. This is where the plausibility is looked at. Plus polygamy is one issue of many, and some of the other issues are really much bigger, and I see more of the possibility game being played by apologists.
In this, then, each case is to be considered. There is plenty of room to disagree on many of the issues of how Joseph behaved. And on top of that, as I tried to make clear earlier, even prophets sin. If he handled it poorly, even in some cases unwittingly, then its up to God to decide if he is prophet or not.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote: I'm calling out the notion of disproving something based on poor logic.
Possibilities that are not plausible do not affect whether an argument is logical. by the way You create an argument that most critics are not even making in regards to polygamist=not prophet of God.
If possibilities remain then disproof did not occur.
That's not how it works. Proof is not an absolute. If it was, science would be in trouble.
stemelbow wrote: In this, then, each case is to be considered. There is plenty of room to disagree on many of the issues of how Joseph behaved. And on top of that, as I tried to make clear earlier, even prophets sin. If he handled it poorly, even in some cases unwittingly, then its up to God to decide if he is prophet or not.
Actually it's up to us to decide if he was ever a prophet of God. We look at his behavior as one way to see if it is likely or plausible. His behavior was very poor. There is more then enough evidence to conclude this. He couldn't even keep his own rules. This is why many members don't like what they find. If anyone is likely to give Joseph a break it would be members of the church, and many of them can't go that far based on the evidence available.
stemelbow wrote:... There is plenty of room to disagree on many of the issues of how Joseph behaved. ...it's up to God to decide if he is prophet or not.
Actually it's up to us to decide if he was ever a prophet of God. ...
Precisely.
Assuming we do believe in a deity, and we also believe that this deity commissions 'prophets', whom he wants us to obey ... then it is up to us to decide whether any candidate for prophet status is entitled to the obedience they claim.
Of course we can make the decision by trying to find out what the deity thinks about the person.
But how do we do that? Rely on what the 'prophet' tells us about what the deity thinks? But that leaves us going round in a circle. If someone else tells us that he or she has another way of finding out what the deity really thinks, how do we decide to believe what we are told?
However you dice it, at some stage you will have to make a decision, even if it is a decision about whom to trust. That is a responsibility you cannot ultimately duck out of.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Buffalo wrote:That's not true, stem. No matter how well ANYTHING is proven, any number of unlikely possibilities always remain. For example, while it's been proven that smoking causes cancer, it's still technically possible that aliens are somehow giving smokers the cancer to fool the researchers. That's just as likely as any of the hypotheticals you bring up in defense of your faith.
I know I"m speaking about disproving.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Themis wrote:Actually it's up to us to decide if he was ever a prophet of God. We look at his behavior as one way to see if it is likely or plausible. His behavior was very poor. There is more then enough evidence to conclude this. He couldn't even keep his own rules. This is why many members don't like what they find. If anyone is likely to give Joseph a break it would be members of the church, and many of them can't go that far based on the evidence available.
I agree that's its a personal preferential assessment. That's my point. Its not so clear to many a Mormon that Joseph Smith' behavior was very poor, particularly in light of the circumstances. To you it is a fact. To many an LDS it is not a fact. To me it is not so black and white either way. Thus, the impasse. But you stating your opinion is the facts of the case is not helpful for discussion for those who disagree with your opinion.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.