I believe the “Christ” depicted in the western hemisphere was words lifted from the Bible but the body the “American” disciples observed was Alvin Smith.
It is disgusting to me but this is the answer I got.
The voyage was little more than the Smith family relocating and ascribing themselves as ancient voyagers.
Those “barges” were the method of “voyaging back in time” as it were, with the stones being nothing more than the stones put in the hats. Hyrum Page had one, Whitmer, and some others. I believe there were eight people given two stones each, per Ether.
It’s ridiculous but that’s what I have seen, or perhaps been shown if you wish.
Truth is it’s embarrassing to me to admit.
Interesting. So, God revealed this to you? Don't be embarrassed. I've heard stranger things.
I am very interested in your assessment of Orson Scott card's Sci fi as being related to the Smith saga-- are you referring to his Alvin Maker series?
Yes. The series are an alternate-history fantasy (alt-history dystopian universe books are among my favorites) set in early America, and the central character, Alvin Miller Jr., is a clear echo of Alvin Smith. Card has said so himself.
Card uses Alvin as a Christlike “Maker,” gifted to reshape and heal the world, which resonates with the way Alvin Smith was remembered as pure and chosen in early Mormon memory.
There are echoes of Restoration themes, destiny, persecution, building a New Jerusalem, so while it’s not a direct retelling of Mormon history, it’s definitely a mythic reworking that draws on the Smith saga.
In #9 you use the words, "it seems". I would take that and apply that to the rest of what you are saying. You, just as much as a religionist, are coming at all of this with a degree of 'imagination' that conforms with a worldview that you have become just as comfortable with as any religionist. You talk about "preconceived views". Methinks you have your own. I suppose we could continue to go round and round.
I do appreciate the time you took to answer and share your thoughts, malkie. You've invested a lot of time and effort to get where you're at. One cannot fault that.
I still think you're not fully engaging with the importance and impact of the size of the church and the ability it has for outreach throughout the world. But I'll leave it at that.
Have a good weekend also.
Regards,
MG
Of course I have preconceived ideas - we all do. And, yes, as I said, I use facts when I think I have them, and hypotheticals and opinions otherwise. Do not assume that "seems" applies everywhere - look at my individual statements, as I did with yours.
If you don't think the size and reach of the LDS church has been adequately covered (by me and by others) then I guess that you and the 0.05% of the world population who attend LDS services each week need to make more noise - the other 99.8% of the non-LDS world and the inactive 0.15% don't seem to be impressed.
As others have pointed out, even the Seventh Day Adventists and the Jehovah's witnesses are eating your lunch, and running away with your snack money.
The language you have used in both words and phrases shows abundant examples of subjectivity rather than objectivity. This is what I'm pointing out. As much as any religionist you are having to rely on your own in built biases which then express themselves in the language you are using.
Either consciously or unconsciously.
We all do it. I'm pointing out that in the list you presented it is difficult to spend much time with any one of your points when as a whole they sit upon a foundation of subjectivity.
I pointed out a couple of examples but there are many more.
The language you have used in both words and phrases shows abundant examples of subjectivity rather than objectivity. This is what I'm pointing out. As much as any religionist you are having to rely on your own in built biases which then express themselves in the language you are using.
Either consciously or unconsciously.
We all do it. I'm pointing out that in the list you presented it is difficult to spend much time with any one of your points when as a whole they sit upon a foundation of subjectivity...
Oops. It appears the mental gymnast goofed and prompted his AI to evaluate HIS OWN earlier post, with HIS OWN list of items, as it was embedded within Malkie's response. It did what it was asked, however, and repeatedly pointed out how subjective HIS OWN mental gymnastics are.
That is the only explanation possible for this utterly absurd and out of context post.
Are you really denying that your god could raise up the FLDS (or any other organization he chose) according to his timeline and needs? Sure, the LDS church is bigger today, but surely your god could work through whichever organization he chose. You seem to want to limit him to your choice based on present-day size, without any good reason.
Of course, you are free to believe that it could not.
size etc - "brushed off", not quite. I've dealt with this in a later point
LDS is the largest of the restoration churches - you think I'm illogical for not seeing this as being as important as you do.
Again, I have to point out that you're choosing criteria that fit your pre-conceived views, without, apparently, considering if this is also the view of your god. That strikes me as illogical. Of course, you have no special access to your god's PoV, and his ways, apparently, are not your ways.
You refer to "scriptural prophesy" that seems to support point [4] - so merely your interpretation
You say that there should be a church upon the earth with an international influence before Jesus returns, but you have no idea when that will be, or what may happen between now and then - assuming for the sake of argument that this is a real thing.
But if were looking at this time for such a church, I don't understand why you're not a Roman Catholic. When the Pope speaks, almost the entire civilized world stops to listen. When the LDS leader speaks, what he says is mostly a footnote outside of Utah.
A few million people believe that the Mormon god spoke to Joseph Smith, so your "If" is very significant, and what follows in your comment is purely hypothetical, by the way you frame it. So what if the LDS church "fits the bill"? Even I wouldn't be surprised that you think that the church based on the claim of that communication seems to fit!
However (without elaborating here) I think that the LDS may not be true to its roots from Joseph's time, so I also would not be totally astounded if it doesn't conform.
And, by the way, we've talked about this before: there are significant gaps in the First Vision story that call into question the whole idea that anyone really spoke to Joseph.
Was Jesus the son of the Mormon god, and does he live today? As you yourself say: "Views on this range all over the place.", and you are simply selecting the one that most fits your needs. I think you're pretty much outnumbered in this point, if size matters to you.
Your claim that "God has called prophets and directs His work through them" is (to quote you) just a claim. Even if true, to suggest, as you seem to do, that that makes your god a good communicator is laughable. Did you not read, or do you disagree, that these men are fallible? I believe you have accepted in the past (even to the point of using it to defend them) that these men are products of their respective time, and have normal human biases, right? How does filtering his message through such "noisy" channels make for good communications? Sorry, I don't see it.
Communication doesn't happen in the fashion/way that I would like/dictate or think it ought to ... - to an extent that's true. But I haven't just chosen an arbitrary faulty means of communication. Knowing what we mere humans do about how to communicate an important message clearly, it seems perverse that a god would not avail himself of known reliable means to send out his message.
Anyway, am I not every bit as entitled to "think" or opine as you or anyone else? Your thinking seems, as always, to be tied to your specific religion's teachings. I'm more inclined to think that if there is a god, and if he has a message for humans, it would make much more sense, in general, to choose a direct and unequivocal way to communicate, rather than through fallible men, and ambiguous feelings which muffle and distort the message.
I'm sure I've missed some points here, but I think it's enough of a response for now. I hope I matched up the numbering correctly
Like I said: I believe that your comments are full special pleadings that privilege your chosen viewpoint above all others; and unsupported conditionals, like "If god appeared to Joseph Smith..." .
Unfortunately, when I brought over your original post your list didn't transfer. This is the list I am referring to with subjective words and phrases:
Paragraph 1: three
Paragraph 2: none
Paragraph 3: five
Paragraph 4: two
Paragraph 5: two
Paragraph 6: none
Paragraph 7: two
Paragraph 8: one
Paragraph 9: one
Paragraph 10: none
Paragraph 11: two
As I said, this makes it somewhat difficult to respond for reasons you might see.
The language you have used in both words and phrases shows abundant examples of subjectivity rather than objectivity. This is what I'm pointing out. As much as any religionist you are having to rely on your own in built biases which then express themselves in the language you are using.
Either consciously or unconsciously.
We all do it. I'm pointing out that in the list you presented it is difficult to spend much time with any one of your points when as a whole they sit upon a foundation of subjectivity...
Oops. It appears the mental gymnast goofed and prompted his AI to evaluate HIS OWN earlier post, with HIS OWN list of items, as it was embedded within Malkie's response. It did what it was asked, however, and repeatedly pointed out how subjective HIS OWN mental gymnastics are.
That is the only explanation possible for this utterly absurd and out of context post.
Unbelievable! Just when you think you’ve seen it all from Fibber, he goes and does something like this.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
Are you really denying that your god could raise up the FLDS (or any other organization he chose) according to his timeline and needs? Sure, the LDS church is bigger today, but surely your god could work through whichever organization he chose. You seem to want to limit him to your choice based on present-day size, without any good reason.
Of course, you are free to believe that it could not.
size etc - "brushed off", not quite. I've dealt with this in a later point
LDS is the largest of the restoration churches - you think I'm illogical for not seeing this as being as important as you do.
Again, I have to point out that you're choosing criteria that fit your pre-conceived views, without, apparently, considering if this is also the view of your god. That strikes me as illogical. Of course, you have no special access to your god's PoV, and his ways, apparently, are not your ways.
You refer to "scriptural prophesy" that seems to support point [4] - so merely your interpretation
You say that there should be a church upon the earth with an international influence before Jesus returns, but you have no idea when that will be, or what may happen between now and then - assuming for the sake of argument that this is a real thing.
But if were looking at this time for such a church, I don't understand why you're not a Roman Catholic. When the Pope speaks, almost the entire civilized world stops to listen. When the LDS leader speaks, what he says is mostly a footnote outside of Utah.
A few million people believe that the Mormon god spoke to Joseph Smith, so your "If" is very significant, and what follows in your comment is purely hypothetical, by the way you frame it. So what if the LDS church "fits the bill"? Even I wouldn't be surprised that you think that the church based on the claim of that communication seems to fit!
However (without elaborating here) I think that the LDS may not be true to its roots from Joseph's time, so I also would not be totally astounded if it doesn't conform.
And, by the way, we've talked about this before: there are significant gaps in the First Vision story that call into question the whole idea that anyone really spoke to Joseph.
Was Jesus the son of the Mormon god, and does he live today? As you yourself say: "Views on this range all over the place.", and you are simply selecting the one that most fits your needs. I think you're pretty much outnumbered in this point, if size matters to you.
Your claim that "God has called prophets and directs His work through them" is (to quote you) just a claim. Even if true, to suggest, as you seem to do, that that makes your god a good communicator is laughable. Did you not read, or do you disagree, that these men are fallible? I believe you have accepted in the past (even to the point of using it to defend them) that these men are products of their respective time, and have normal human biases, right? How does filtering his message through such "noisy" channels make for good communications? Sorry, I don't see it.
Communication doesn't happen in the fashion/way that I would like/dictate or think it ought to ... - to an extent that's true. But I haven't just chosen an arbitrary faulty means of communication. Knowing what we mere humans do about how to communicate an important message clearly, it seems perverse that a god would not avail himself of known reliable means to send out his message.
Anyway, am I not every bit as entitled to "think" or opine as you or anyone else? Your thinking seems, as always, to be tied to your specific religion's teachings. I'm more inclined to think that if there is a god, and if he has a message for humans, it would make much more sense, in general, to choose a direct and unequivocal way to communicate, rather than through fallible men, and ambiguous feelings which muffle and distort the message.
I'm sure I've missed some points here, but I think it's enough of a response for now. I hope I matched up the numbering correctly
Like I said: I believe that your comments are full special pleadings that privilege your chosen viewpoint above all others; and unsupported conditionals, like "If god appeared to Joseph Smith..." .
Unfortunately, when I brought over your original post your list didn't transfer. This is the list I am referring to with subjective words and phrases:
Paragraph 1: three
Paragraph 2: none
Paragraph 3: five
Paragraph 4: two
Paragraph 5: two
Paragraph 6: none
Paragraph 7: two
Paragraph 8: one
Paragraph 9: one
Paragraph 10: none
Paragraph 11: two
As I said, this makes it somewhat difficult to respond for reasons you might see.
Regards,
MG
Sorry, I do not see the reasons. I'm sure that you can use copy and paste - just as I did when I needed to.
But while we're here, can you explain where you got the "three; none; five" etc. from, and clarify what "Paragraph1, 2, 3" etc mean?
Added: What did you do when you "brought over" my original post?
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details. Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
