Kinderhook vs the Papyri

[_Cylon]

Also: I requested some information from God, and God revealed to me through prayer that Joseph Smith was a liar and a charlatan who never saw or spoke with Jesus Christ at any point in time. Now what?

Nothing at this time. Either you, or I am, a liar before God and will be judged for that.

False dichotomy. One or both of you could be lying, or God could be lying to one or both of you, or one or both of you could be delusional, or one or both of you could be misinterpreting the experience you had. Just because you're confident you're not lying doesn't mean that he is lying. for what it's worth, I received a spiritual witness that the church is not true, even thought I had previously gotten a spiritual witness that the church was true. Of course, God didn't talk to me either time.

[_Shulem]

c) ...who is the King in Facsimile 3?

You shouldn't have asked this. It is Paul's task.

You're Goddamn right about that. I could go on and on but I won't.

Poor Tobin. He saw something and heard a voice or saw a light or a shape. Now look at him! Tobin, people get these things all the time, I kid you not. I once saw Satan descending upon me like a bat out of hell (outstretched arms) coming down a long tunnel. I knew that if he reached me, I'd die. So, all I could do was call out the name of my bishop! I forgot about Jesus' name. Guess what? It worked. I was saved.

And I've heard the so called Almighty voice command me to do things. So what. My brain was active and neaded to hear what it thought it needed.

I suggest you value your so-called special spiritual experiences at the same level Joseph Smith had with his stupid papyrus roll ideas. YOU are certainly no more spiritual than Joseph Smith and he really took it to the extreme.

Paul O

[_Tobin]

...

thews, listen very carefully to me. Joseph Smith translated by the gift and power of God, not by knowing the language. It isn't a dodge or anything else. It is a simple statement of fact. Joseph Smith did not know Egyptian Hieroglyphics.

Now, you point out that Joseph Smith claimed other things about the papyri. I'm perfectly aware of that. Joseph Smith was mistaken. He was a human being, get over it. I don't believe Joseph Smith because of what he claimed, I believe Joseph Smith because of what God tells me to be true. That is the difference. Mormons do not have to accept everything a prophet of God says as being from God. They are human beings and make mistakes.

You seem to be under the delusion that Mormons have to blindly and uncritically consider everything a Mormon prophet says as being true. That is patently absurd and I simply don't accept that. No matter how many times you assert it.

[_Shulem]

...

thews, listen very carefully to me. Joseph Smith translated by the gift and power of God, not by knowing the language.

And his successors purchased fake documents by the same inspiration. Every single thing about the Book of Abraham saga is damning. The facts add up to: Fraud.



Paul O

[_Tobin]

Nothing at this time. Either you, or I am, a liar before God and will be judged for that.

False dichotomy. One or both of you could be lying, or God could be lying to one or both of you, or one or both of you could be delusional, or one or both of you could be misinterpreting the experience you had. Just because you're confident you're not lying doesn't mean that he is lying. for what it's worth, I received a spiritual witness that the church is not true, even thought I had previously gotten a spiritual witness that the church was true. Of course, God didn't talk to me either time.

I don't accept that God lies. I believe human beings are fully capable of it. Also, either Joseph Smith was a prophet of God or he wasn't. God told me he was a prophet of God, Samantabhadra claims God told her that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God. So either I am telling the truth or Samantabhadra is. One of us has to be lying.

[_Shulem]

Joseph Smith lied to high heaven. Of that I am sure.

Life in the matrix. Poor Tobin. He believes in God over a few simple visual effects. That's pretty sad. What a sucker.

Paul O

[_thews]

...

thews, listen very carefully to me. Joseph Smith translated by the gift and power of God, not by knowing the language. It isn't a dodge or anything else. It is a simple statement of fact. Joseph Smith did not know Egyptian Hieroglyphics.

As you snip the relevant part of the question I asked you in yet another attempt to dodge the point, we agree on the above.

Now, you point out that Joseph Smith claimed other things about the papyri. I'm perfectly aware of that.

Then acknowledge what those "things" were. Do you acknowledge that Joseph Smith claimed he was "translating" the papyri and that it contained the writings of Abraham by his own hand? This is a yes or no question.

Joseph Smith was mistaken. He was a human being, get over it.

Mistaken about what? Exactly what was Joseph Smith mistaken about Tobin?

I don't believe Joseph Smith because of what he claimed, I believe Joseph Smith because of what God tells me to be true.

This is the crux of your argument which you continue to repeat. What you're saying here is that you don't need the truth claims of Joseph Smith to actually be true. If this is what you believe more power to you, but it's not critical thought.

That is the difference. Mormons do not have to accept everything a prophet of God says as being from God. They are human beings and make mistakes.

If they make mistakes, like using their power to sleep with other men's wives and 14 year-old girls, then I understand your point, though I don't agree with it. Regarding the doctrine they produce however, this "mistake" is hardly one of a man, but rather a man who claimed to receive revelation from God.

You seem to be under the delusion that Mormons have to blindly and uncritically consider everything a Mormon prophet says as being true.

It's not "delusional" to expect that a prophet of God speaks the truth. It is delusional in my opinion to believe that a prophet of God sometimes speaks the truth regarding the source of the religion's doctrine.

That is patently absurd and I simply don't accept that. No matter how many times you assert it.

And I would counter the same. You know the very doctrine you place faith in is based on an outright lie, yet because you feel God spoke to you through a feeling that it's still true. Do you ever question that feeling? What if it's not true? I had a near death experience and saw my dead body outside of it. I know this happened... I was there and I know what I saw, but I still don't discount the possibility it was a dream-like state and I just remember it that way. The point being that one must remain objective in what they believe to be true, because now matter how much you believe you're right, there's still a possibility that you're wrong. In this case, you use "absurd" and "delusional" to even question the truth claims of a man you know is lying (you use "mistaken" to soften the blow)... think about it. Take Descartes' meditation for a spin and throw everything you believe to be true out the window as false, then build it back up again and acknowledge what you actually "know" to be true. If you reach the same conclusion, the only thing you can possibly "know" is that you exist... everything else is only your perception of the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditation ... Philosophy

Meditation I: Concerning Those Things That Can Be Called into Doubt

The first way that Descartes tries to undermine his beliefs is by considering the fact he remembers that his senses have deceived him before. If he has been misled by sensory information in the past (e.g. he judged that the stick in the water was bent, when in fact it was straight), then he may be deceived now, "and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once."

He goes on to suggest more powerful reasons to doubt that his beliefs are true. In general, his method is that of forming skeptical hypotheses — methodic doubt. In the first meditation, he considers whether he is mad, dreaming, or deceived by an evil demon.[4]

The general form of these arguments is:

If I am dreaming/deceived, then my beliefs are unreliable.

Descartes' goal — as stated at the beginning of the meditation — is to suspend judgment about any of his beliefs which are even slightly doubtful. The skeptical scenarios show that all of the beliefs which he considers in the first meditation, including at the very least all of his beliefs about the physical world, are doubtful. So he decides to suspend judgment. He will henceforth give up all of his beliefs about the physical world. He also decides that he will continually remind himself to avoid habitually falling into accepting beliefs without support, a habit to which he is susceptible.

[_thews]

One more for Tobin... Joseph Smith also claimed to "translate" part of the Kinderhook plates as the story of Ham. You discount this as untrue, yet it's a fact that it is true. A known hoax being "translated" by Joseph Smith who also claimed the papyri contained the writings of Abraham "by his own hand" as a second data point. Do you also discount this "mistake" as no big deal?

[_Cylon]

False dichotomy. One or both of you could be lying, or God could be lying to one or both of you, or one or both of you could be delusional, or one or both of you could be misinterpreting the experience you had. Just because you're confident you're not lying doesn't mean that he is lying. for what it's worth, I received a spiritual witness that the church is not true, even thought I had previously gotten a spiritual witness that the church was true. Of course, God didn't talk to me either time.

I don't accept that God lies. I believe human beings are fully capable of it. Also, either Joseph Smith was a prophet of God or he wasn't. God told me he was a prophet of God, Samantabhadra claims God told her that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God. So either I am telling the truth or Samantabhadra is. One of us has to be lying.

Just because you don't accept that God lies doesn't mean it's impossible for him to do so. Who are you to tell God he can't tell different people different things?

But even if we accept your assertion that God doesn't lie, it doesn't mean one of you has to be lying. You're both human. You or she could simply be mistaken about how you interpreted what God told you. If Joseph was mistaken about the Book of Abraham being on the papyrus, Samantabhadra could be mistaken about the answer to her prayer. Lying involves telling a falsehood that you know to be false, not just saying something untrue that you believe to be true.

[_Tobin]

I don't accept that God lies. I believe human beings are fully capable of it. Also, either Joseph Smith was a prophet of God or he wasn't. God told me he was a prophet of God, Samantabhadra claims God told her that Joseph Smith was not a prophet of God. So either I am telling the truth or Samantabhadra is. One of us has to be lying.

Just because you don't accept that God lies doesn't mean it's impossible for him to do so. Who are you to tell God he can't tell different people different things?

But even if we accept your assertion that God doesn't lie, it doesn't mean one of you has to be lying. You're both human. You or she could simply be mistaken about how you interpreted what God told you. If Joseph was mistaken about the Book of Abraham being on the papyrus, Samantabhadra could be mistaken about the answer to her prayer. Lying involves telling a falsehood that you know to be false, not just saying something untrue that you believe to be true.

Ok - I'll concede that there is the possibility that we are simply mistaken. That is only reasonable.