Not Your Standard First Vision Thread

[Shulem]

Do you think he “backwards-engineered” his theology? Meaning, first explored an idea and then later ascribed it to an ancient source - like the Book of Abraham for example?

Smith's book of Abraham was hatched like a Dr. Seuss hen laying its egg and saying, "I meant what I said and I said what I meant."

In other words, do you think the concepts in the King Follett discourse came from somewhere else and Joseph made them his own?

Smith was wildly inventive and creative and stole from many different sources to come up with theology on the fly.

I say this in the (sacred) name of Joseph Smith,

Amen.



PS. f-u, MG. U dumb ass.

[MG 2.0]

I don’t see why you would need to. Or why others need to be dragged into a thread that isn’t about them. That might be true for your mind, but you shouldn’t insinuate that others share your personal struggle with cognition and comprehension. Why? Why can’t more than two people all be pious frauds?If one person in a large group isn’t a pious fraud, that suggests none of them are pious frauds? You are really really bad at logic. You think it’s a fraud?I guess you’ll find out over time.

It reminds me a bit of the guy who, for safety, snuck a b*mb onto a plane. After all, he reasoned, the probability of two b*mbs on a plane is so much less than the probability of one.

The presence of one bomb does not influence the probability of another bomb being on a plane. The idea that one bomb protects against the other is absurd. Please show how this reasoning that you're putting out there, even if somewhat in jest, is directly applicable point by point to what I've said.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

This is quite the display of illogical and contradictory thinking.

First, there is the assumption that a group of 2 is easier to understand, therefore, by default, it must be a group larger than 2.

Wrong.

Next, there is the assumption that if a group is larger than 2, it must be possible that the group is not that large.

Wrong again.

Last, there is the assumption that if a group is not larger than 2 it must be possible that the group has 0 elements.

Really, really wrong.

To sum up, the mental gymnastics of this argument are that a group of 2 must be larger than 2, AND, if a group is larger than 2 it must be possible that it's NOT larger than 2, AND, if it's a group of 2 it must be possible it's a group of less than 2.

Having to start with the assumption that one's conclusion is true wreaks havoc on logical thought processes.

I think MG is going for the “there are too many people in the know for it to remain secret” defense.

Having served in naval intelligence for over 20+ years, and within the intelligence community for an additional 15 years, I can assure you that large numbers of people can in fact keep secrets. Especially if there is a stake in it.

There were some of these people that didn't have a stake in it over the long haul. They could have spilled the beans.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

If you read carefully you’ll notice I said “if there is such a thing.” I think Alvin’s motive was noble. Rigdon let pride cloud his judgment but I think he originally meant well.

I’ll let it go as far as the text takes me, as most of what I have been saying is predicated by the book being “true.”

So far I count eight collaborators.

And so far, none that spilled the beans. And they may have even had good reason to...in their mind.

Regards,
MG

[huckelberry]

A loving father gives freely, yes, but love implies honesty and consistency.

While I am not LDS nor ever have been, I’ve known enough Mormons and been on discussion boards long enough to understand that the god described in Mormon theology seems more transactional than tender.

That god demands loyalty to an ever-changing system that withholds information and affection until worthiness through obedience to arbitrary rules is proven.

Yes, the King Follett Discourse presents the idea of divine potential, but the relationship it describes feels less like a loving parent nurturing a child and more like a ruler grooming subjects for hierarchy.

As an active member I was astounded by the King Follet Discourse. The biggest problem I now see with the ideas therein is that the discourse is not scripture.

Malkie, your comment is suggestive enough to invite discussion. It is also vague enough I do not really know what you mean. I first thought ithe sermon terriffic but later developed serious reservations. I do not see Limnors observations as all wrong. As to cannon does not DC 132 include the basics which King Follett developed or clarifies. I do not think the sermon will be rejected though maybe not discussed on national television.

[huckelberry]

If you read carefully you’ll notice I said “if there is such a thing.” I think Alvin’s motive was noble. Rigdon let pride cloud his judgment but I think he originally meant well.

I’ll let it go as far as the text takes me, as most of what I have been saying is predicated by the book being “true.”

So far I count eight collaborators.

And so far, none that spilled the beans. And they may have even had good reason to...in their mind.

Regards,
MG

If Rigdon knew he contributed he would loose his own aspirations if he admitted it. Could be true of any others helping produce the book.

There is a possibility Rigdon contributed without knowing it. I do not think that is what Limnor is proposing however.

[malkie]

It reminds me a bit of the guy who, for safety, snuck a b*mb onto a plane. After all, he reasoned, the probability of two b*mbs on a plane is so much less than the probability of one.

The presence of one bomb does not influence the probability of another bomb being on a plane. The idea that one bomb protects against the other is absurd. Please show how this reasoning that you're putting out there, even if somewhat in jest, is directly applicable point by point to what I've said.

Regards,
MG

Try reading my comment to determine whether it appears to have been intended to be "directly applicable ...to what [you] said", whether "point by point" or not.

[MG 2.0]

One might also look at the King Follett discourse as laying out the potential of God's children. That He would actually desire to give them all that He has. What Father would not want that for their child?

Regards,
MG

A loving father gives freely, yes, but love implies honesty and consistency.

While I am not LDS nor ever have been, I’ve known enough Mormons and been on discussion boards long enough to understand that the god described in Mormon theology seems more transactional than tender.

That god demands loyalty to an ever-changing system that withholds information and affection until worthiness through obedience to arbitrary rules is proven.

Yes, the King Follett Discourse presents the idea of divine potential, but the relationship it describes feels less like a loving parent nurturing a child and more like a ruler grooming subjects for hierarchy.

LDS theology is complex, and interpretations vary widely even within the church in regards to the theology you are referring to. 1 Nephi:20 would be an example of God responding to His children with "tender mercies". Not necessarily transactional at all. Simply given because of His love for His children. Many times these tender mercies are experienced during moments of great need where nothing is expected in return . Although, let it be said, when we receive those tender mercies that may act as a catalyst to increased faith and devotion.

Obedience and covenants are important in LDS theology, but they are framed as pathways to spiritual growth and closeness to God, not mere transactions. I think, as I've said before, that you may fail to give credit to where credit is due. God is much bigger than what I think I see you limiting Him to be. Joseph Smith was at the same time much or while also being much less than what you portray him to be...in my opinion.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

The presence of one bomb does not influence the probability of another bomb being on a plane. The idea that one bomb protects against the other is absurd. Please show how this reasoning that you're putting out there, even if somewhat in jest, is directly applicable point by point to what I've said.

Regards,
MG

Try reading my comment to determine whether it appears to have been intended to be "directly applicable ...to what [you] said", whether "point by point" or not.

If it's not, then the comment really does not add to the discussion in my opinion. It's merely a rhetorical 'side tracking' and deflating device/method to take the air out of what was being said and make it appear to be of little or no worth.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

As an active member I was astounded by the King Follet Discourse. The biggest problem I now see with the ideas therein is that the discourse is not scripture.

Malkie, your comment is suggestive enough to invite discussion. It is also vague enough I do not really know what you mean. I first thought ithe sermon terriffic but later developed serious reservations. I do not see Limnors observations as all wrong. As to cannon does not DC 132 include the basics which King Follett developed or clarifies. I do not think the sermon will be rejected though maybe not discussed on national television.

Yeah - sorry, huckelberry - I should have been more explicit. Perhaps I was subconsciously following this advice:

"If no thought your mind doth visit,
Make your speech not too explicit"
-- Piet Hein

What I was trying to say was that I came across the King Follet Discourse while doing something that I and other class teachers in the church were counseled not to do: looking for supplementary information outside of the teachers' manual. I was the teacher of the Young Single Adult class at the time, and was also the YSA Adviser. I had never before heard or read of these ideas in this amount of detail, and I was completely startled by the power of the concepts.

Being both outside of the manual and not canonised for me, now, puts the details in much the same category as the Adam-God hypothesis: fascinating, but not to be taught. However, at the time I didn't think about that, and went ahead with teaching it to my class.

I wasn't intending to comment on Limnor's observations at all - just explaining, badly, how it affected me at the time.