fundamental suppositions of God that are absurd

[_Themis]

I can't disagree with that. But again, the absurdity is in the eyes of the beholder.

Certainly the fooled don't see the absurdity or they would not have fallen for it.

A consistent theme among those that have left the LDS faith is that Joseph Smith fits the bill of being a fraud and an imposter.

He fits it better then just about anyone. His original claim of seeing God is inconsistent and changes over time with his changing ideas of God. His Book of Mormon is full of anachronisms and has no evidence for being an ancient text as he claims, but fits the mind of someone in the 1800's. His Book of Abraham is even worse. He claims to translate source text which we have, and makes many claims about the papyri and it's connection to Abraham. All are wrong, and catalyst theory does not explain the evidence. The only thing that perfectly explains the evidence is he made it up. This theme comes up over and over again. This is a guy who claims angles with flaming swords in order to bed women. This is a guy who when they find some bones in a Indian burial makes up a story about zelph the white lamanite. This is a guy we KNOW was a fraud before he even started to make religious claims. This is why many members after understanding the evidence can no longer believe. Some members who know the evidence, like Christians and young earth and global flood, just cannot accept their beliefs are clearly wrong. Don't blame me.

A consistent theme among the believers and those that are open to the plausibility/possibility that the LDS faith has/is something critically different from the competing religious systems in the marketplace of ideas is that Joseph, even though a flawed human being in some respects, restored lost truths, scripture, and authority...the restored church.... and spoke with God/Christ.

Many cannot accept the obvious for various reasons. Global flood is an example, but there are many more. Joseph did not come up with anything new. He, like others, just put it together in their own way, which changed over time. L Ron Hubbard wins for new ideas. If you want to believe the fraud go ahead. If it makes you happy I am happy for you.

[_mentalgymnast]

What does the LDS faith claim to have that is critically different from what the competing religious systems claim to have?

What I just said.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

I can't disagree with that. But again, the absurdity is in the eyes of the beholder.

Certainly the fooled don't see the absurdity or they would not have fallen for it.

A consistent theme among those that have left the LDS faith is that Joseph Smith fits the bill of being a fraud and an imposter.

He fits it better then just about anyone. His original claim of seeing God is inconsistent and changes over time with his changing ideas of God. His Book of Mormon is full of anachronisms and has no evidence for being an ancient text as he claims, but fits the mind of someone in the 1800's. His Book of Abraham is even worse. He claims to translate source text which we have, and makes many claims about the papyri and it's connection to Abraham. All are wrong, and catalyst theory does not explain the evidence. The only thing that perfectly explains the evidence is he made it up. This theme comes up over and over again. This is a guy who claims angles with flaming swords in order to bed women. This is a guy who when they find some bones in a Indian burial makes up a story about zelph the white Lamanite. This is a guy we KNOW was a fraud before he even started to make religious claims. This is why many members after understanding the evidence can no longer believe. Some members who know the evidence, like Christians and young earth and global flood, just cannot accept their beliefs are clearly wrong. Don't blame me.

A consistent theme among the believers and those that are open to the plausibility/possibility that the LDS faith has/is something critically different from the competing religious systems in the marketplace of ideas is that Joseph, even though a flawed human being in some respects, restored lost truths, scripture, and authority...the restored church.... and spoke with God/Christ.

Many cannot accept the obvious for various reasons. Global flood is an example, but there are many more. Joseph did not come up with anything new. He, like others, just put it together in their own way, which changed over time. L Ron Hubbard wins for new ideas. If you want to believe the fraud go ahead. If it makes you happy I am happy for you.

I'm just as aware of all this as the next guy, Themis. And believe it or not I'm pretty level headed and not prone to being duped and/or accepting things uncritically. I'm not disputing that the restoration story is messy and troublesome in some respects. And those messy and troublesome aspects of the restoration are enough so that I can see why some people, including yourself, would discard belief/faith/hope in a higher power and/or being that can take us...through our faithfulness and obedience...to higher planes of thought/accomplishment/happiness. Those of us that lean on that hope of an eternal hereafter that holds promise for long range fulfillment and creativity tend towards looking at things with a wider/broader scope than simply looking at the relative here and now do so because we choose to. It becomes a choice. We are willing to cut slack to human beings. We are willing to recognize that history is a mixed bag of the true and the untrue and/or incomplete. We are willing to see God in fallible human beings. We are willing to be obedient to principles that we believe will bring greater happiness/progress. We are willing to submit to what we see as being higher authority when we believe that doing so is for our and others greater good.

Now, having said that, I know that the next post or two from you or others (well, not now... ) will point towards Warren Jeffs or some other whacko leader that sheeple follow without question. I realize the danger making a choice like that and am sad that so many are, in my opinion, mislead into strange paths that lead in to harmful and or questionable actions/beliefs. I know, you're thinking...duh!...that's exactly what you're doing MG! All I can say is that after many years of thought and introspection...and a lot of study and some prayer here and there...I'm putting my faith (although rather complicated and for sure not TBM style) in the CofJCofLDS. Take my word for it. I've paid the price just as much as you folks. And most others out there.

Sidenote. Last week at church our Stake President was in attendance. I talked with him after the meeting outside the chapel for a few minutes. Told him about the faith journey that many of us take and the hard road that it is. Our meeting had been on that theme. He and I had a short but enlightening conversation and are planning on further conversations in the near future...at least that's the plan. He said that I should expect a call and some opportunities to talk more with him. I had expressed to the SP that I would be willing to converse/talk with others in the stake that might be going through the beginning/middle or final stages of a crisis of faith and give them some advice and hopefully some wisdom based upon the twenty plus years that I've been on my own faith journey. Sounds like fun, huh?

Anyway, these conversations on boards such as this typically take a fairly predictable path and I experience periodic bouts with Deja Vu as I participate. But it's good to put myself out there now and then to let others know that a journey of faith and a crisis or two along the way can result in more than one path taken. It would be nice if those of us that interact on forums such as this could meet each other in person. I'm sure that we would find that we have many things in common and OTOH, we would probably find a difference of opinion in regards to taking or leaving the teachings/commandments of the church, at least in some respects. But that would be natural and/or expected...if indeed that is the case.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

I'm just as aware of all this as the next guy, Themis. And believe it or not I'm pretty level headed and not prone to being duped and/or accepting things uncritically.

At least you think you are critically minded. It' hard to see with someone who thinks things like the catalyst theory are reasonable. What is worse when you realize they haven't even thought it through to explain how it works. It's called a faith crisis because one wants to believe, and some cannot accept the obvious. I can understand this. It can mean more trouble in their mind accepting the obvious then remaining a believer.

I'm not disputing that the restoration story is messy and troublesome in some respects. And those messy and troublesome aspects of the restoration are enough so that I can see why some people, including yourself, would discard belief/faith/hope in a higher power and/or being that can take us...through our faithfulness and obedience...to higher planes of thought/accomplishment/happiness.

There is no higher planes of thought in LDS doctrine. I know many think they have found it, but self delusion is a real human skill. It's not about abandoning belief/faith/hope in a higher power. It seeing that Joseph is making it up and never represented any higher power. You have already shown faithfulness for you is only about blind faith in God existing.

Those of us that lean on that hope of an eternal hereafter that holds promise for long range fulfillment and creativity tend towards looking at things with a wider/broader scope than simply looking at the relative here and now do so because we choose to.

You certainly choose to believe, but I missed where you are really looking at things with a broader scope. This is justification for maintaining belief in a fraud. Not uncommon.

We are willing to cut slack to human beings. We are willing to recognize that history is a mixed bag of the true and the untrue and/or incomplete.

So am I. You are deluded here. Joseph was a flawed man, but this does not come close to explaining the evidence. The Book of Mormon lacks any evidence for being an ancient text and has tons of evidence for an 18th century text for a reason. It was made up. The Book of Abraham is exactly the same. It is worse because we have source text which Joseph claimed to translate. In the end this is your excuse to believe what you want.

We are willing to be obedient to principles that we believe will bring greater happiness/progress.

What principles? Former believers have principles they are willing to live. Many are similar to what LDS or other religions have.

I'm putting my faith (although rather complicated and for sure not TBM style) in the CofJCofLDS.

I can understand why you maintain belief. I know many in my personal life who would not be able to accept the obvious. I would never think of trying to convince them otherwise. If they are happy, I am happy for them.

I had expressed to the SP that I would be willing to converse/talk with others in the stake that might be going through the beginning/middle or final stages of a crisis of faith and give them some advice and hopefully some wisdom based upon the twenty plus years that I've been on my own faith journey. Sounds like fun, huh?

I suspect you may not have that much fun. You don't seem to understand the mind of many you would be talking to. Your reasoning would be viewed as terrible by many.

I'm sure that we would find that we have many things in common

I'm sure we would. I get along fine with my BIL even though he has some of the worst thinking on these kind of issues.

[_mentalgymnast]

Your reasoning would be viewed as terrible by many... [and]I get along fine with my BIL even though he has some of the worst thinking on these kind of issues.

This from a person who, if I remember correctly, is unwilling to read Understanding the Book of Mormon. Even if doing so would possibly...not saying that it would...alter and/or change some of the assumptions/presumptions that you have made in regards to the complexity of that book. I would guess you haven't read By the Hand of Mormon for similar reasons for not having the inclination to read Hardy's book. You've already made your decision based upon other evidence that you find damning and/or overwhelming...so your thinking has been done. These two books, for me, took me from a similar place of, "well, the evidence is overwhelming in disfavor of the Book of Mormon", to a place where I was able to give the Book of Mormon another look and even come to the point of giving it a benefit of a doubt. Now, do I know for a fact that it is a book of historicity? No. Do I believe based upon the internal workings of the book that it may indeed be historical? Yes. Do the anachronisms and New Testament references concern me? Yes. Are they deal breakers? No. There have been and continue to be, at least for me, persuasive arguments in favor of the Book of Mormon (multiple authorship, for one)...and truth be told, when I read it consistently, that book has a Spirit associated with it that I don't find when I read Tolkien or Dostoevsky.

And so it goes. There will be those such as yourself that believe that those who practice faith are by nature poor examples of reasoning. Such must be the case, on your part, to rationalize and/or support your disbelief. It MUST be reasonable/logical to choose disbelief. And you MUST defend it. That's understandable.

Regards,
MG

[Guest]

This from a person who, if I remember correctly, is unwilling to read Understanding the Book of Mormon. Even if doing so would possibly...not saying that it would...alter and/or change some of the assumptions/presumptions that you have made in regards to the complexity of that book. I would guess you haven't read By the Hand of Mormon for similar reasons for not having the inclination to read Hardy's book. You've already made your decision based upon other evidence that you find damning and/or overwhelming...so your thinking has been done. These two books, for me, took me from a similar place of, "well, the evidence is overwhelming in disfavor of the Book of Mormon", to a place where I was able to give the Book of Mormon another look and even come to the point of giving it a benefit of a doubt. Now, do I know for a fact that it is a book of historicity? No. Do I believe based upon the internal workings of the book that it may indeed be historical? Yes. Do the anachronisms and New Testament references concern me? Yes. Are they deal breakers? No. There have been and continue to be, at least for me, persuasive arguments in favor of the Book of Mormon (multiple authorship, for one)...and truth be told, when I read it consistently, that book has a Spirit associated with it that I don't find when I read Tolkien or Dostoevsky.

And so it goes. There will be those such as yourself that believe that those who practice faith are by nature poor examples of reasoning. Such must be the case, on your part, to rationalize and/or support your disbelief. It MUST be reasonable/logical to choose disbelief. And you MUST defend it. That's understandable.

Regards,
MG

I have not read every material on the issues, but I have read quite a bit. I doubt I need to read a specific book to find an argument I have not seen. I am probably aware of the arguments you are thinking about, but when I have ever asked you for specifics about even one, you don't seem to understand enough to want to show even one. I may be missing some ideas but you either don't know any or don't want to share. If you understand an argument at all you would be able to articulate it here. I challenge you to provide even one.

by the way This is the same problem with the catalyst theory. I cannot get you or others to give real details in how it can work without making Joseph and God dumb and dumber.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

If he is serious he is apparently not concerned with attributes such as faith/hope/free will/sin/atonement, etc.

Well, Jesus visited the Nephites as a resurrected being, and it seemed to work out for them. I don't really see any issues with a god visiting his creations with regularity, unless for some reason you think a Hunger Games world is necessary for humans to understand what it's like to be murdered, mutilated, raped, tortured, or die of cancer/disease in order to really understand how good they'll have it when they go back to Heaven?

Which does open up the playing field for getting God to perform on stage for the world to see...I must admit.

Well, why not? I think that would do more to advance our society than leaving us to our own fallible interpretations of feelings, self-interest, and attempts to control our environment.

So far I haven't seen any alternative ways that God might choose to communicate with the world and the world would remain such as it is. A place of diversity and choice.

How would a god or gods visiting here every so often prevent diversity and choice? Isn't god establishing a One True Church or a Kingdom of Heaven on earth an attempt to homogenize the population within one dogma?

[_mentalgymnast]

How would a god or gods visiting here every so often prevent diversity and choice? Isn't god establishing a One True Church or a Kingdom of Heaven on earth an attempt to homogenize the population within one dogma?

Now that's a good question. But look at the question for a moment. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the CofJCofLDS is that One True Church and Kingdom on earth. IF it is, there is still a wide diversity of systems of religion and thought on the earth as it is. So your question would become moot. Well, you say, if God was a bit better at setting up His kingdom so that it wasn't, on the historical surface, messy in some respects, and as a result so many folks have a rough time seeing it as the kingdom of God, THEN it would be an influence in the world that would homogenize the world's population with greater efficiency/success. But, alas, that's not the way things work. Being a part of the CofJCofLDS becomes a choice fraught with obstacles in one way or another...opposition in all things, so to speak. So, we do live in a world of diversity and at the same time...if you take the CofJCofLDS's at its word, we also have the kingdom of God sitting within the wider world of diversity.

IF God was to do what you are suggesting and appear at somewhere like the Super Bowl and make Himself known AND what He wants everyone to do from that point on in exactness...now THAT would lessen the amount of diversity and homogenize the populations of the world.

What's wrong with that you say? Well, we then get into issues such as agency, choice, coercion, and what have you. As it is, there is room for all...and a multiplicity of choices. I kind of like it like that. I think it's kind of cool that you and I can see, hear, read, learn, and experience the world, and specifically the world of Mormonism, and come to different places. If everything was absolutely sure/concrete we'd either BOTH be LIKE YOU or we'd both be LIKE ME. Otherwise, one of us would be totally out to lunch.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

This from a person who, if I remember correctly, is unwilling to read Understanding the Book of Mormon. Even if doing so would possibly...not saying that it would...alter and/or change some of the assumptions/presumptions that you have made in regards to the complexity of that book. I would guess you haven't read By the Hand of Mormon for similar reasons for not having the inclination to read Hardy's book. You've already made your decision based upon other evidence that you find damning and/or overwhelming...so your thinking has been done. These two books, for me, took me from a similar place of, "well, the evidence is overwhelming in disfavor of the Book of Mormon", to a place where I was able to give the Book of Mormon another look and even come to the point of giving it a benefit of a doubt. Now, do I know for a fact that it is a book of historicity? No. Do I believe based upon the internal workings of the book that it may indeed be historical? Yes. Do the anachronisms and New Testament references concern me? Yes. Are they deal breakers? No. There have been and continue to be, at least for me, persuasive arguments in favor of the Book of Mormon (multiple authorship, for one)...and truth be told, when I read it consistently, that book has a Spirit associated with it that I don't find when I read Tolkien or Dostoevsky.

And so it goes. There will be those such as yourself that believe that those who practice faith are by nature poor examples of reasoning. Such must be the case, on your part, to rationalize and/or support your disbelief. It MUST be reasonable/logical to choose disbelief. And you MUST defend it. That's understandable.

Regards,
MG

I have not read every material on the issues, but I have read quite a bit. I doubt I need to read a specific book to find an argument I have not seen. I am probably aware of the arguments you are thinking about, but when I have ever asked you for specifics about even one, you don't seem to understand enough to want to show even one. I may be missing some ideas but you either don't know any or don't want to share. If you understand an argument at all you would be able to articulate it here. I challenge you to provide even one.

by the way This is the same problem with the catalyst theory. I cannot get you or others to give real details in how it can work without making Joseph and God dumb and dumber.

It's like this, Themis. When I'm out and away from the books I've read I'm not one that can quote chapter and verse. But I do recollect the general thoughts and feelings I had as I was reading the book. I'm just not going to go back and reread for you and then regurgitate specifics FOR YOU on this board. You're a big boy, and if you're interested you can read the books I've read. I can only tell you the general impression and/or take away I experienced after having READ the book. You want proofs. Fine. Go do the footwork.

Much of the time when I'm playing around on this forum I'm not even near my books anyway. At this moment I'm not home, I'm at work, and I have free time on my hands...and it's raining outside.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

It's like this, Themis. When I'm out and away from the books I've read I'm not one that can quote chapter and verse. But I do recollect the general thoughts and feelings I had as I was reading the book.

Feel free to do it when you have time.

I'm just not going to go back and reread for you and then regurgitate specifics FOR YOU on this board.

This just confirms you either don't have good arguments or don't know them well. I have seen you over the years spending lots of time, so I already know you buy into some bad arguments. I also know some of these books don't have good reviews, and the specifics people have brought up I have known about.

You're a big boy, and if you're interested you can read the books I've read.

You made the claim, so it's up to you to back them up. I am not going to waste so much time for all the claims people make and think I should be the one to investigate. I don't have that much time. Especially with people I know don't make good arguments or want to even articulate even some information.