Billy Shears owns the apologists on Joseph Smith

[_jfro18]

It goes back and forth, doesn't it?

Regards,
MG

It always will go back and forth, but at the same time the reason people believe these things is because they were taught them from an early age (the overwhelming majority, at least).

So this idea that those who have found the church to be false should shut up so others can live in ignorant bliss is disingenuous. There are people (I'm thinking mostly of seniors here) that get scammed into putting their money into things that are so excited about what they're doing... should people just let them get scammed because it feels good?

This church asks so much of its members yet can't be bothered to have their leaders do interviews where they answer for the harmful policies they have claimed (and rescinded) through revelation, the historical evidence that completely contradicts their truth claims, or why they continue to teach members to stay in the boat through fear.

I think there is value to people who are presenting the evidence as it is.

Does it suck that there isn't an awesome VIP heaven where we're all sealed together in eternal polygamous families? Yeah... it's tough not knowing what awaits us.

But it doesn't change the fact that no one knows what happens.

I could raise my kid to believe that in Europe the rain is actually marshmallows and he would tell all of his friends about it. They would tell him that I am wrong and he would defend me because he trusts me.

So he'd go on in ignorant bliss that it rains marshmallows in Europe... and he will continue to believe that even as it rains normal rain in Europe.

The point is that just because we want something to be a certain way doesn't change the facts or evidence.

We all wanted Joseph Smith to be the pure, honest prophet he was portrayed as in church - and I wanted Joseph Smith to have translated plates of gold on a table so studiously as the missionaries testified to me that he did.

But he didn't do that... and he lied repeatedly to people during his lifetime.

No about of saying "I know" will ever change that... no matter how much we nuance and excuse things in order to try and make it work.

[_Mormonicious]

I have a problem with this post.

The true judgement of Horny Holy Joe's profitiship is White and Delightsome and Curse of Cain. Those terms I understand.

STUPID damned Mormons

All HAIL GOOGLE GOD!!!!

[_Gadianton]

So you can see why we would not give up what we have in exchange for what you have: Despair when someone dies because there is no hope of ever seeing them again.

Part of the equation is expectations, didn't you guys learn anything from Johnie Lingo? If you've been brought up to view yourself as a prince who will rule the world someday, and then upon adulthood informed that not only are you not really a prince, but flat broke, a nobody, not really talented, and if you wish to continue to eat, better to get a job at 7-11 if they'll take you; then that could be depressing. But had you been brought up in a broken home without guidance and low self-worth, and then after a youth made up of lots of bad mistakes, given a chance at that 7-11 job, it might look like a real opportunity.

I've lost people in my life, and quite honestly, hard as it is, the page turns, and the thought of seeing them again just doesn't feel right. To the extent that it sounds nice, it's an idle fantasy, unfortunately. I could write for pages on that topic, but just to point out one thing, nobody really thinks it through past the blissful moment of being reunited, and into the next day, and the day after that, and the day after that, the centuries after that, and the billions of years, and eons later. Now conceive of the largest number that you can't really conceive of, and that many centuries doesn't even begin to get you started on the time you're going to spend with that person you knew for a handful of years in mortality. At a certain point, the imbalance of the vast other side so determined by the fleeting moments on this side just gets kind of silly. And I'm not just talking about the setup: the idea of a single test that determines everything forever, but the idea that the bonds established in such a transient time compared to the vastness of eternity, that they need to be ensconced in epoxy resin for "Tree3" orders of time in order a) to have any meaning at all or b) in order to have hope in life.

[_honorentheos]

I wonder if the commentor feels equally positive towards people who knowingly surround themselves with flatterers? If reality is less important than appearance provided the fiction presented is a pleasant one then it seems the consistent thing to do is seek out flattery. Which, to be fair, is pretty common. I just don't think we overtly declare the practise to be a virtue. I expect most people would find a claim it is preferable to be lied to pleasantly than told hard truths sincerely to be immature and distasteful.

[_Meadowchik]

I find it depressing when people spend their lives in meetings and ceremonies in hopes that their devotion will result in eternal families, while also neglecting those relationships today. I find it sad that there is injustice, but the fact that I am not certain of a divine reckoning makes me more eager to help people now, make the world better now.

[_Philo Sofee]

Billy Shears is a breath of rational fresh air, no wonder apologists can't stand him. They have testimonies the stale air they breathe is the only true and living air on the entire earth......

[_Physics Guy]

[N]obody really thinks it through past the blissful moment of being reunited, and into the next day, and the day after that, and the day after that, the centuries after that, and the billions of years, and eons later. Now conceive of the largest number that you can't really conceive of, and that many centuries doesn't even begin to get you started on the time you're going to spend with that person you knew for a handful of years in mortality. At a certain point, the imbalance of the vast other side so determined by the fleeting moments on this side just gets kind of silly. And I'm not just talking about the setup: the idea of a single test that determines everything forever, but the idea that the bonds established in such a transient time compared to the vastness of eternity, that they need to be ensconced in epoxy resin for "Tree3" orders of time in order a) to have any meaning at all or b) in order to have hope in life.

A good point. Reunion with lost loved ones, the undoing of grief, seems to be the thing that most people want most from an afterlife. And yet if our experiences of highs and lows in life are any guide, after six months or so of afterlife the reunion would be taken for granted and we'd be bickering over whose turn it was to polish the harps.

The point would seem to apply not only to reunions with loved ones but to pretty much everything one might want in an afterlife. If eternal life is not merely an endless stagnation, then surely after even a mere million years of immortal growth and experience all the experiences of my mortal life will be an insignificant blip of personal prehistory which will no more represent me as a million-year-on immortal being than the first few minutes of existence of my zygote represent my current mortal identity.

In this sense eternal life may well annihilate the significance of our brief mortal lives just as thoroughly as annihilation would. Even if after death we live forever, the meaning of our mortal lives must be found in them now, because as resurrected beings we'll all be too busy with unimaginable new things to spend much time reminiscing about those ridiculously ancient times back on Earth.

Thinking about our own mortal lives in relation to a hypothetically eternal existence seems a bit like raising children in the best-case scenario where the children survive and grow up ... and leave home and get way too busy to call their parents. When the twenty-year-old is off at college the cute little three-year-old stumping around the living room is just gone; when she was there she was the light of the world but now hardly anyone ever even bothers to try to remember her, least of all the busy student that she herself has become.

And when I put it that way the effective annihilation of past life doesn't actually seem so bad. Watching children grow up is amazing. You can afford to let the past go. But you really have to try to soak up all you can of the early times as they pass. Maybe the good as well as the evil has to be sufficient unto the day.

[_MsJack]

When the leaders of the Church insist Joseph Smith be thought of in black-or-white terms, you shouldn't feel too indignant when non-believers comply

About 9 months into my first marriage, my Mormon husband cornered me and demanded to know whether I thought Joseph Smith was a prophet. When I said "Of course not" (I think me not believing Joseph Smith was a prophet is apparent from the whole "Protestant" part of me), he began angrily insisting that I tell him what I thought of Joseph Smith. I tried to avoid answering as it was clear my answer would just upset him, but he just kept getting louder and angrier.

I finally said, "I believe Joseph Smith was ultimately a liar and a false prophet."

He replied, "If I'd known you felt that way, I NEVER would have married you." Again, I am an evangelical Protestant. How did he think I felt?

It may be that my memory is re-writing the event 15 years after the fact, but he seemed rather satisfied with my answer. He would go on to suddenly request a divorce a month later. (We separated then reconciled and stayed together until 2014.)

I know now that he was having an affair at the time and believe he was fishing for excuses to divorce me as quickly as possible. Regardless, I truly find it strange when Mormons get upset at non-believers having low opinions of Joseph Smith.

It's not like we're able to find a more innocent explanation for his claim that an angel with a flaming sword was ordering him to pick up sidechicks.

[_Physics Guy]

Thankfully I've never met it up-close-and-personal like that but I've also been really stumped at how Mormons don't get how gross their earliest leaders look to non-Mormons. Even otherwise pretty reasonable Mormons seem to feel that they're still being perfectly reasonable in simply acknowledging that Well, yes, of course, Joseph Smith did have flaws, but God works with flawed people yada yada. It's really hard for me to get how they can fail to get how much "flawed" doesn't cover it.

I can only account for this weird moral blindness of Mormons about Smith by thinking that there's a really strong instinct to shut down thought about Joseph Smith's character, except when they're enthusiastically taking his pious letters or whatever at full face value. Perhaps at some level they know that there's a nasty cesspool down in the cellar and so you just never open that door.

[_Markk]

When the leaders of the Church insist Joseph Smith be thought of in black-or-white terms, you shouldn't feel too indignant when non-believers comply

About 9 months into my first marriage, my Mormon husband cornered me and demanded to know whether I thought Joseph Smith was a prophet. When I said "Of course not" (I think me not believing Joseph Smith was a prophet is apparent from the whole "Protestant" part of me), he began angrily insisting that I tell him what I thought of Joseph Smith. I tried to avoid answering as it was clear my answer would just upset him, but he just kept getting louder and angrier.

I finally said, "I believe Joseph Smith was ultimately a liar and a false prophet."

He replied, "If I'd known you felt that way, I NEVER would have married you." Again, I am an evangelical Protestant. How did he think I felt?

It may be that my memory is re-writing the event 15 years after the fact, but he seemed rather satisfied with my answer. He would go on to suddenly request a divorce a month later. (We separated then reconciled and stayed together until 2014.)

I know now that he was having an affair at the time and believe he was fishing for excuses to divorce me as quickly as possible. Regardless, I truly find it strange when Mormons get upset at non-believers having low opinions of Joseph Smith.

It's not like we're able to find a more innocent explanation for his claim that an angel with a flaming sword was ordering him to pick up sidechicks.

I understand both your view and your ex’s. I married a Evangelical, and am now a evangelical. So I have a pretty good take on both views.

We are so indoctrinated we can’t see through the fog. Joseph is so critical to the testimony ....Jesus can be a sinner, but Joseph must be more or less perfect.

My wife cried (literally) BS when we (my parents) arraigned a missionary lesson...she ran out of my folks house literally crying. I never pushed again, and we lived in different faiths for around ten years before I had enough courage to question Joesph...and by default the church.