Dan Vogel versus the late Ted Chandler

[_SteelHead]

The thing that you need to recognize is that there are many good, wonderful and miraculous experiences in life and these come from God. Hold on to these.

Can you offer any proof that the good and miraculous experiences come from god?

Which god?

Exu?

Crom?

[_TomHagen]

Thanks Tom for your response, but I think you are making a number of assumptions here that are not necessarily true.

For example, I highly doubt that

Why would God - a "perfect parent" in Mormon theology - employ such a capricious, arbitrary system that virtually guarantees failure on all but those who literally stumble upon the right answer?

is true. As far as I can tell in Mormonism, the purpose of life is merely to exist and received a body. Whether it be for 2 seconds or for 100 years. Also, very few of the vast majority of humans that have lived on this planet have ever heard of Mormonism, so it is very doubtful that joining Mormonism is essential to God in this life.
So you are right.

It doesn't make any sense.

Moreover, as I already implied, if the purpose of our journey here is to become more godlike, I fail to see how that involves ignoring cold, hard facts in favor of the absurdity mentioned by Tobin.

Again, this is something I very seriously doubt is our purpose here. Do we learn to create planets, order things around with our minds and so on? In what way are we little gods on this planet and learning to become more god-like exactly? I believe the purpose of life beyond existing is to learn to accept and love one another, treat them with respect, and do our best in whatever circumstances we find ourselves. If anything, it isn't to become god-like at all, but to become more humane.

If we are here to be tested, then what is proven by ignoring what our own brains tell us, eschewing our own learning, and just going along with what another person claims is the right answer?

I fail to see any expectation along these lines. God provides evidence (proofs) in our lives that we can choose to follow in our search for him, or we can choose not to. These tests as you characterize them are simply challenges in our way that improve our humanity. We would be pretty awful creatures without some challenges and weaknesses to overcome.

Isn't that actually cheating?

No, it is just the nature of existence. I can't think you would dispute that everyone that is born has at least some of these things in their lives.

To not use your own knowledge and experience, but rather rely upon the answer of another?

Again, that isn't what is being taught or you are missing the point. When we love one another, and do our best for each other - we grow closer to God than by doing anything else we can do. If you want the best answer to many of the world's ills it lies in that. And that is what the Lord is trying to teach us.

God has only given that experience to a select few with highly suspicious motives.

And I disgree. I believe God has touched many lives and people have risen to meet their challenges and have been great examples as God has inspired and motivated them. People like Martin Luther King Jr, Fred Rogers, Rosa Parks, and Gandhi to name just a few. If you wish to know God and be like him, aspire to be like these people were at their best and make the difference they did.

Tobin, thank you for your insightful response. I fear that I am in danger of hijacking vessr's original intent for this thread. However, I would be interested in a further dialogue with you on these points. I may be entirely wrong, but you seem to believe in a reformed or modified Mormonism where the Book of Mormon is true, but that eschews many of the mainstream teachings of the LDS church that it is the sole possessor of the essential belief system that must be accepted either in this life or the spirit world immediatey afterwards for one to progress any further. Mormonism clearly teaches that acceptance and testimony of the Book of Mormon is a crucial part of this, but that it is not the only one. Indeed, Mormonism is quite clear, in my experience, that persistence in the church, its callings, its ordinances, and pushing as many others through this as possible through missionary work for the living, and temple work for the dead, is required. All with the end goal of being exalted like our "Father in Heaven" at some amorphous point in the spiritual future.

Being a "good TR holding Mormon" is part of this requirement, according to the teachings of the LDS church. Your reference to other persons who have performed great acts OUTSIDE of Mormonism does nothing to bolster a testimony of Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon or the essential nature of Mormon ordinances. That those persons were giants of humanity is beyond dispute. However, their experiences are far different from how you earlier described Joseph Smith' claim of seeing God, talking with an angel, and having a golden book drop in his lap. Looking to the experiences of MLK, Ganhdi, Mother Teresa, St. Thomas Assisi, or Oprah does not give one a reference point from which to objectively evaluate a spiritual testimony of the singularly marvelous/absurd claims behind the origin of the Book of Mormon.

This again leads us back to vessr's original intent - finding external objective evidence to support the Book of Mormon. That is not furthered by the subjective exercise of prayer. It is not furthered by the experiences of others - not at its heart. If one chooses to pray, receives a good feeling, and accepts that feeling as a "testimony" (a thing which it technically is not, but that is another subject), or chooses to rely upon the experience of another, then that is their prerogative. Vessr, on the other hand, is asking for something more. A shred of objective evidence to support what Joseph Smith and the LDS church claim the Book of Mormon to be. Such evidence is surprisingly lacking.

[_Tobin]

Tobin, thank you for your insightful response. I fear that I am in danger of hijacking vessr's original intent for this thread. However, I would be interested in a further dialogue with you on these points. I may be entirely wrong, but you seem to believe in a reformed or modified Mormonism where the Book of Mormon is true, but that eschews many of the mainstream teachings of the LDS church that it is the sole possessor of the essential belief system that must be accepted either in this life or the spirit world immediatey afterwards for one to progress any further. Mormonism clearly teaches that acceptance and testimony of the Book of Mormon is a crucial part of this, but that it is not the only one. Indeed, Mormonism is quite clear, in my experience, that persistence in the church, its callings, its ordinances, and pushing as many others through this as possible through missionary work for the living, and temple work for the dead, is required. All with the end goal of being exalted like our "Father in Heaven" at some amorphous point in the spiritual future.

Being a "good TR holding Mormon" is part of this requirement, according to the teachings of the LDS church. Your reference to other persons who have performed great acts OUTSIDE of Mormonism does nothing to bolster a testimony of Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon or the essential nature of Mormon ordinances. That those persons were giants of humanity is beyond dispute. However, their experiences are far different from how you earlier described Joseph Smith' claim of seeing God, talking with an angel, and having a golden book drop in his lap. Looking to the experiences of MLK, Ganhdi, Mother Teresa, St. Thomas Assisi, or Oprah does not give one a reference point from which to objectively evaluate a spiritual testimony of the singularly marvelous/absurd claims behind the origin of the Book of Mormon.

This again leads us back to vessr's original intent - finding external objective evidence to support the Book of Mormon. That is not furthered by the subjective exercise of prayer. It is not furthered by the experiences of others - not at its heart. If one chooses to pray, receives a good feeling, and accepts that feeling as a "testimony" (a thing which it technically is not, but that is another subject), or chooses to rely upon the experience of another, then that is their prerogative. Vessr, on the other hand, is asking for something more. A shred of objective evidence to support what Joseph Smith and the LDS church claim the Book of Mormon to be. Such evidence is surprisingly lacking.

That's fine. We can take the discussion elsewhere if you'd like. I do not view the LDS Church as the one and only true Church of God or in other words the kingdom of God. I believe they are entirely different animals. The LDS Church in my view is merely an association of like-minded believers as any other Church. The Church of God or kingdom of God are all those practioners of the true religion of loving one another as yourself. The members of this church lead exemplary examples in their pursuit and discovery of the truth and due to their love, service, and desire to better their fellow man's condition.

[_DrW]

Vessr, on the other hand, is asking for something more. A shred of objective evidence to support what Joseph Smith and the LDS church claim the Book of Mormon to be. Such evidence is surprisingly lacking.

The utter lack of objective physical evidence supporting the Book of Mormon is really not surprising, given the documented fact that Joseph Smith was a liar, philanderer and conman, who fraudulently foisted the Book of Mormon upon an unsophisticated and unsuspecting public in an attempt to make some money.

[_vessr]

Tobin, thank you for your insightful response. I fear that I am in danger of hijacking vessr's original intent for this thread. However, I would be interested in a further dialogue with you on these points. I may be entirely wrong, but you seem to believe in a reformed or modified Mormonism where the Book of Mormon is true, but that eschews many of the mainstream teachings of the LDS church that it is the sole possessor of the essential belief system that must be accepted either in this life or the spirit world immediatey afterwards for one to progress any further. Mormonism clearly teaches that acceptance and testimony of the Book of Mormon is a crucial part of this, but that it is not the only one. Indeed, Mormonism is quite clear, in my experience, that persistence in the church, its callings, its ordinances, and pushing as many others through this as possible through missionary work for the living, and temple work for the dead, is required. All with the end goal of being exalted like our "Father in Heaven" at some amorphous point in the spiritual future.

Being a "good TR holding Mormon" is part of this requirement, according to the teachings of the LDS church. Your reference to other persons who have performed great acts OUTSIDE of Mormonism does nothing to bolster a testimony of Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon or the essential nature of Mormon ordinances. That those persons were giants of humanity is beyond dispute. However, their experiences are far different from how you earlier described Joseph Smith' claim of seeing God, talking with an angel, and having a golden book drop in his lap. Looking to the experiences of MLK, Ganhdi, Mother Teresa, St. Thomas Assisi, or Oprah does not give one a reference point from which to objectively evaluate a spiritual testimony of the singularly marvelous/absurd claims behind the origin of the Book of Mormon.

This again leads us back to vessr's original intent - finding external objective evidence to support the Book of Mormon. That is not furthered by the subjective exercise of prayer. It is not furthered by the experiences of others - not at its heart. If one chooses to pray, receives a good feeling, and accepts that feeling as a "testimony" (a thing which it technically is not, but that is another subject), or chooses to rely upon the experience of another, then that is their prerogative. Vessr, on the other hand, is asking for something more. A shred of objective evidence to support what Joseph Smith and the LDS church claim the Book of Mormon to be. Such evidence is surprisingly lacking.

That's fine. We can take the discussion elsewhere if you'd like. I do not view the LDS Church as the one and only true Church of God or in other words the kingdom of God. I believe they are entirely different animals. The LDS Church in my view is merely an association of like-minded believers as any other Church. The Church of God or kingdom of God are all those practioners of the true religion of loving one another as yourself. The members of this church lead exemplary examples in their pursuit and discovery of the truth and due to their love, service, and desire to better their fellow man's condition.

Tobin,

You may not view the LDS Church as the only true Church, but you threaten of God’s condemnation if one doesn’t believe as you do, just the same. You say that the “Church of God or kingdom of God are all those practioners of the true religion of loving one another as yourself. The members of this church lead exemplary examples in their pursuit and discovery of the truth and due to their love, service, and desire to better their fellow man's condition.”

You have cited examples of your “Church”, such as “Martin Luther King Jr, Fred Rogers, Rosa Parks, and Gandhi to name just a few.” You claim that to know God and be like him, one should aspire to be “like these people” who “were at their best and [made] the difference they did.”

And yet you would condemn me and each of them if they didn’t end up believing as you do about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. In that case, you would claim we have not properly sought God to know the truth. In that case, you would claim that did not in the end humble ourselves as you allegedly have. In that case, because we will not know the truth, we will be viewed by God and you as condemning the things of God. In that case, “such things ….will be returned to you at the last day. You will be shown the truthfullness of all of this by the Lord and you will stand ashamed and condemned because you did not seek God out and called his words foolish and would not follow him.”

So, finally, in that case, we will end up after all, no matter how much we have loved and served or fellow man, as not being part of the “kingdom of God” that you and your God have created.

[_vessr]

Now that I have gotten the last exchange "off my chest," I'm going to ask that we return the thread and the requirements for responding to it. There has been a lot of discussion about God's alleged involvement our lives as well as in writing the Book of Mormon. But ground rules have been set previously. When someone hereafter starts speculating, using God as part of the discussion, I will request you to refrain. We are only looking in this thread at naturalistic explanations for the Book of Mormon. If you don't want to refrain, I will ask Dr. shades to step in.

I want this discusision hereafter to be controlled in this way. God and supernatural explanations should not be allowed in a thread, like this one, that is based on assertions, and assertions absent evidence can go on forever derailing the objective of a discussion dealing with naturalistic explanations.

[_Tobin]

And yet you would condemn me and each of them if they didn’t end up believing as you do about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. In that case, you would claim we have not properly sought God to know the truth. In that case, you would claim that did not in the end humble ourselves as you allegedly have. In that case, because we will not know the truth, we will be viewed by God and you as condemning the things of God. In that case, “such things ….will be returned to you at the last day. You will be shown the truthfullness of all of this by the Lord and you will stand ashamed and condemned because you did not seek God out and called his words foolish and would not follow him.”

Not really. I think we condemn ourselves. I certainly am not your judge and will leave that to God. And I hardly think that MLK, Gandhi, Fred Rogers or any of those I mentioned would bother themselves logically analyzing Mormonism. They had better things to do with themselves and that is what I'm encouraging you to do. If you wish to know the will of God, then you need to follow after these kinds of examples of human dignity and understanding. If you are interested in Mormonism and think it is true, then investigate it. If not, then I encourage you to seek other things that seem true to you and lead the kind of examples these people did.

So, finally, in that case, we will end up after all, no matter how much we have loved and served or fellow man, as not being part of the “kingdom of God” that you and your God have created.

Not really. Everyone will be baptized and have their temple work done. I find such things rather unimportant. It isn't outward appearance and performances that determine what we are, but the content and quality of our character and being.

[_vessr]

You have responded to the last post I will give in this forum on the topic you continue to address. Please see my last post where I put the top back where it belongs -- on not speculating about God when we are focused on theories of how the Book of Mormon was created, OTHER than by God.

[_Tobin]

You have responded to the last post I will give in this forum on the topic you continue to address. Please see my last post where I put the top back where it belongs -- on not speculating about God when we are focused on theories of how the Book of Mormon was created, OTHER than by God.

Of course. I have only responded to posts directed towards me. I have no desire to derail your thread, only present my perspective and respond to criticisms of it.

[_vessr]

Based on the threads presumption, for purposes of discussion, that no supernatural element was involved with the creation of the Book of Mormon, we are left with a two main theories, based on the content of this thread: (1) Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon by himself out of his own head with only borrowings from the Bible to support his story; or (2) Joseph relied on another source or sources to create the book. The Spaulding theory has been analyzed on this thread. I believe the consensus for the anti-Spaulding group is that such a theory is inconsistent with eye witness accounts of Joseph translating without referring to another source, other than, perhaps, from the Bible for certain parts of the book.

I was surprised to find the Spaulding theory alive and well in the minds of some persuaive people who have contributed to this thread. I thought the "general consensus" (at least according to that powerful source, Wikipedia, was that the Spaulding-Rigdon theory had been generally discredited since it's origins. That does not seem the case, according to credible contributors to this thread.

My question now is whether those who support a Spaulding theory on this thread also support a Rigdon contribution to the creation of the Book of Mormon, or they believe that Joseph Smith did this alone or with the help of another such as Oliver Cowdery, but not Rigdon?