This is bizarre. Log essentially agreed with Kevin on this specific point, and yet Kevin reacts hyper-defensively as though Log is oppposed to him.
Experience has taugh me that when a person reaches this level of irrationality, there is little point in trying to reason with him or her, and I think the subsequent fruitless interactions with Kevin bear this out.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
You didn't quit rationlizing with me, and if your honest, you thought I crossed the line. lol
Do you get what I'm driving at? Experiences can be interpreted as spiritual if someone is dead set on interpreting them that way.
I agree that many experiences are made into God given when they are not. My experiences are not of that nature. As strongly as you believe God never answered a prayer that you felt he was obligated to answer if it was true. I believe he has answered my prayers in strong obvious manners and at times when I had not prayed and not desrving an answer as well as times I put the effort in and did deserve them.
Last but not least we need to get this thread back on track so I offer this as a segue.
I realize it hinges on faith, but is it fair to say members of other churches feel just as spitirually inclined that there church is the true church just as we do? Ex: Jehovah Wirtnesses, Seventh Day Adventist, scientologist, muslims?
And if even one other church or faith has a similar truth claim whose members have a similar spiritual connection to their faith's claim; How might we use the same measuring stick for this church that has been talked about throughout this thread to discern that the other church's claims are false?
Now that should get the wheels turning, even if only mine!!!!
And I ask that you approach this from the perspective acknowleging their feelings and impressions are real to them just as yours are to you!
You didn't quit rationlizing with me, and if your honest, you thought I crossed the line. lol
The differences, of course, lie in kind and degree.
You've only been an irritating *** for a week or so. .
Xander/Graham has spent the better part of a decade trotting out his particularly noxious brand of argument-by-assertion.
Also, while your initial interactions came across badly, you demonstrated both the willingness and capacity to assimilate, comprehend, and process the position and reasoning of others (whether you ultimately agree with them or not).
Hraham's modus operandi is closer to the dogmatic, paranoiac Flat-Earther who insists that everyone who disagress with him is part of the conspiracy.
Not being a trained clinician, I would not presume to diagnose his underlying mental state- but as is amply demonstrated above, he states his own opinions as incontrovertible fact, willfully distorts what people have said to feed his paradigm, and is utterly convinced of the perfection of his own narcissism.
In failing to heed Wade's advice, I violated the old maxim.
"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."
I realize it hinges on faith, but is it fair to say members of other churches feel just as spitirually inclined that there church is the true church just as we do? Ex: Jehovah Wirtnesses, Seventh Day Adventist, scientologist, muslims?
Logically, one must assume that they stay either because they believe it to be true or because membership fulfills another need in their lives.
That having been said, the question is problematic (in my mind) for two reasons:
First, I am unaware of any Church that adopts the position or practice of submitting their faith claims to God for verification.
Second, given the plethora of options to be found in "mainstream" Christianity, I don't believe such a test would have any real meaning for them. Most "mainstream" Christians of my acquaintance don't hold a particular Church/sect/congregation to be "true" or "the one, true Church". Their emphasis tends to hold more that Christianity-as-a-whole is true and will migrate between the various denominations until they find the one that most closely matches their comfort zone.
More bluntly- unlike Catholics, Latter-day Saints, and a small handful of the other groups, most Christians are wed to the overall school of thought rather than to a particular sect or denomination.
Quote
And if even one other church or faith has a similar truth claim whose members have a similar spiritual connection to their faith's claim; How might we use the same measuring stick for this church that has been talked about throughout this thread to discern that the other church's claims are false?
Again- I think this asks the wrong question and substantively misrepresents the underlying claims of the Mormon faith.
With the exception of demonstrating that there was an apostacy (and therefore a genuine need for a Restoration), the LDS faith is not predicated upon proving other religions wrong.
Unlike the dogmatic countercult ministries, Mormons as a faith and a people are not intersted in damning or condemning others as heretics.
Our emphasis is instead, that what we have is true, right, and correct, and that we invite others to join us.
Except in the most egregious and self-evident cases of unrighteous dominion and abuse (such as the FLDS and Jonestown), we are not interested in denouncing or decrying the practices of others- and no part of our ministry is dedicated to disproving the religious claims of others.
Call it passive/aggressive if you like, but Mormons as a whole are more interested in touting the virtues of that light which we possess than in belittling what light others might have.
Except in the most egregious and self-evident cases of unrighteous dominion and abuse (such as the FLDS and Jonestown), we are not interested in denouncing or decrying the practices of others- and no part of our ministry is dedicated to disproving the religious claims of others.
Call it passive/aggressive if you like, but Mormons as a whole are more interested in touting the virtues of that light which we possess than in belittling what light others might have.
This isn't about demeaning other's faiths. I am aware and as big a proponet as anyone that Salvation in Christ can be found in many faiths in this life assuming one is willing to accept more truth whether presented in this life or the next.
What I am asking is this. In order to talk me down from the roof of the building you have set up an much more lienent, less rigid way of examining the church's claims and the events that happen within it. So with that new frame to think within, I am wondering how many other faiths could also survive within that framework passing the test. Now recognize I am playing devil's advocate a little but this will be productive in helping me separate a dichotomy. If we allow mistakes by those who are called of God, allow a church to de-emphasize any negative historical issues, allow everything other then the very most basic of doctrines to be flexible so as to give people room to make changes in their beliefs based on science, social norms, ect.... Could opther faiths that are not the Lord's True and Living Church to escape being seen as anything less then that. Entertain me a little.
Kevin Christenson wrote a paper for fair about judging prophets and what a prophet is and isn't. Using the flexible standard that is set. Would David Koresh fit that bill being allowed to make mistakes in the midst of calling people to repentance.
What standard have we given ourselves that would allow one to dicern that Church A does not fit the requirements but Church B does?
And please don't say the Holy Ghost as there are many outside our faith that claim the spirit bears witness our church isn't true, so how does one figure it out by the standards that have been set outside the influence of the Holy Ghost
What do I make of Joseph Smith? I have read all three bios by Brodie, Vogel and Bushman. What troubled me most in my exit was the Book of Abraham. To me that was a solid argument against the legitimancy of the role of Joseph Smith. Now Ritner's new book is out will Gee respond in a substantive way devoid of any personal acrinomy? Historians have now accepted the 1826 trial and polygamy, boths issues for which Brodie was castigated for. But then she was eventually proven also right in her argument that Jefferson had a relationship with Sally Hemmings, for which she received a lot of criticism from established Jefferson scholars. You just do not accept the oral history of an upstart negro who claims he was a son of Jefferson and his mother Sally.
Ronald Numbersd wrote a biography of Ellen G White where she comes off less than perfect as seen in the eyes of traditional SDA members. He was castigated for it. No insider likes their image of their founding prophet to be not quite what they have been told. LDS members point to Bushman's bio as an example of an effort to deal with the difficult issues. In a footnote he concedes that the Smith family joined the LDS church later after 1823 rather than in 1820. Now where was the revival in his vicinity? A couple of camp meetings suffice? Like the Jefferson scholars, LDS scholar's lives and academic reputation has been built up on accepting the legitimacy of Smith.
Edited by noel00, 21 April 2012 - 07:10 PM.
Jon Stewart "No wonder some GOP members oppose gay marriage and support traditional marriage, they do it so often"
IIRC, much of the criticism with Brodie rested on her psychological analysis style rather than the factual claims.
Quote
Smith family joined the LDS church later after 1823 rather than in 1820
????
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
1826 trial Rough Stone Rolling p. 51-52 My old friend the late Rev Wesley P Walters was the person who found the court documents. Some LDS tried to say he altered the documents but have not provided any evidence he did.
Jefferson's relationship is discussed in The Hemingses of Monticello by Annette Gordon-Reed. The author appears in a lot of youtube vidoes that you might like to check out. An earlier book deals with the weight given to the oral and written records of slaves or former slaves (little). Sally only fell pregnant when Jefferson was home on the plantation at Monticello. If it was his brother or some other Jefferson why did she not fall pregnant at another time. She was 16 when the relationship started in Paris.BTW was Temple work done for African Americans before 1978? If not you have a lot of slave registers to work through.
Timing of the joining of the Presbyterian church see RSR page 570 footnote 30.
Jon Stewart "No wonder some GOP members oppose gay marriage and support traditional marriage, they do it so often"
Xander/Graham has spent the better part of a decade trotting out his particularly noxious brand of argument-by-assertion.
This of course is another piece of gibberish. If you could debate me, you would. But your problem is that you can't defend your position, and so now you're left with nothing but well-poisoning rhetoric. Attacking me won't change the fact that you do not understand Mormon doctrine as explained to you in this thread. I've backed up my argument with scripture and LDS commentary, whereas all you've done is assert that my position is wrong because... well, because you say so.
Quote
Also, while your initial interactions came across badly, you demonstrated both the willingness and capacity to assimilate, comprehend, and process the position and reasoning of others (whether you ultimately agree with them or not).
But you've presented no reasoning of any kind. All you've done is assert that I must be wrong because the conclusions don't jive with your faith-promoting agenda. Well, tough cookies.
Quote
Hraham's modus operandi is closer to the dogmatic, paranoiac Flat-Earther who insists that everyone who disagress with him is part of the conspiracy.
As if that made any sense. Since Selek is having a difficult time comprehending what's been said, the fact that I have cordial friendships with a number of LDS believers means what he just said can't be true at all. What "conspiracy" is he talking about? While he likes making comparisons, I think it is obvious that there are very clear differences between his ilk and the more respectable LDS folks like Brian Hauglid, David Bokovoy and Don Bradley. I've had a number of disagreements with these folks as well, and these exchanges never deteriorate into a rhetorical slugfest the way exchanges with Dan Peterson, Selek, Loran and Pahoran generally do. The reason for this probably has something to do with the fact that they do not hold me in contempt simply because I'm former LDS, and they have no problem admitting that I have something of value to say. So despite Selek's wishful thinking and bald assertions that I am the problem, I can actually prove that the problem isn't me, but with folks like Selek.
Quote
Not being a trained clinician, I would not presume to diagnose his underlying mental state- but as is amply demonstrated above, he states his own opinions as incontrovertible fact, willfully distorts what people have said to feed his paradigm, and is utterly convinced of the perfection of his own narcissism.
I've distorted nothing and you know this. I think you're just upset because I turned your own argument against you and made you look foolish. I proved you were being hypocritical for demanding that I say nothing is true unless it had an "empirical basis"! It is clear that in your world, only Mormons are allowed to state faith-based assumption as factual when there is no empirical basis for asserting them. And in the meantime you have no problem asserting a number of nonsensical attacks about me, things you have no way of knowing with any degree of certainty. Yet you present them as facts just the same, and now you're pretending you have a clue as to who I am and what I've been doing with my time over the past decade. It doesn't take a genius here to figure out who has let emotion get the better of him in this exchange. You came at me with all guns a blazin, and immediately blew off your toes. You then ran off the rails early and now you're left with nothing but side-show rhetoric and projection.
Quote
"Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it."
A review of all the relevant documents demonstrates that:
The court hearing of 1826 was not a trial, it was an examination
The hearing was likely initiated from religious concerns; i.e. people objected to Joseph's religious claims.
There were seven witnesses.
The witnesses' testimonies have not all been transmitted faithfully.
Most witnesses testified that Joseph did possess a gift of sight
So what was Brodie's claim that was accepted?
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
Jefferson and Hemings' relationship is discussed in this thread: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57388-thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemmings-baptized-married-by-mormon-church/
Most historians may agree, but it is not a settled fact proven by DNA, but a conclusion based on several factors and I am more concerned with her methodology, which is what was criticized by LDS scholars more than her conclusions. In that sense, she is vindicated, that her own conclusion is not invalid, but simply because a conclusion is likely, doesn't mean the methodology by which the conclusion is drawn is accepted as well. Is her methodology accepted or still criticized? That would be the important acceptance, imo.
Has this conclusion about her methodology been discounted by more recent historians?
Quote
An in-house editor at W. W. Norton was critical: "Doesn't [Brodie] know about making the theory fit the facts instead of trying to explain the facts to fit the theory? It's pretty fascinating, like working out a detective story, but she doesn't play fair."[50]
As far as your point about the Presbyterian Church, I am unsure what the significance is, could you elaborate its importance please.
Edited by calmoriah, 21 April 2012 - 08:12 PM.
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
Nibley in The Myth Makers said it was a fraud. If it was true then the most devastating evidence against Smith. When Brodie's book came out this was attacked. Read Reconsidering No Man Knows My History: Fawn Brodie and Joseph Smith in Retrospect ed Newell Bringhurst
Before I said LDS church, II meant Presbyterian church in West Palmyra.
Edited by noel00, 22 April 2012 - 03:51 AM.
Jon Stewart "No wonder some GOP members oppose gay marriage and support traditional marriage, they do it so often"
"Sooner or later, there comes a point in a man’s life when he’s gotta face some facts. And one fact I gotta face is that, whatever it is that women like, I ain’t got it. I chased after enough girls in my life. I went to enough dances. I got hurt enough. I don’t wanna get hurt no more." —Ernest Borgnine as Marty, the title character in the 1955 film. (RIP, Mr. Borgnine.)
Nibley in The Myth Makers said it was a fraud. If it was true then the most devastating evidence against Smith. When Brodie's book came out this was attacked. Read Reconsidering No Man Knows My History: Fawn Brodie and Joseph Smith in Retrospect ed Newell Bringhurst
What did Nibley say was a fraud? The trial? If so, then since it wasn't a trial and only a hearing where most witnesses testified he did have the gift of sight, it's not particularly devastating, is it?
Edited by calmoriah, 21 April 2012 - 08:16 PM.
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
Timing of the joining of the Presbyterian church see RSR page 570 footnote 30.
Bushman says there is a strong circumstantial case that the Smiths joined the Presbtyerian church in 1824 rather than 1820.p. 570.
Earlier you said "LDS church" instead of "Presbyterian church." That's what caused the confusion.
Regardless, I don't see why the fact that the Smiths joined the Presbyterian church in 1824 rather than 1820 is such a big deal. I'm sure most other members of the Church won't care too much either.
Edited by altersteve, 21 April 2012 - 08:27 PM.
"First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win." —Mahatma Ghandi
Have you read this article?: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:PTs02pnkc0kJ:https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/viewFile/6991/6640+Reconsidering+No+Man+Knows+My+History&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjcNNZbigcRz5O_rmk2BIhFWktV2mtDdkGyyZgWbf-qGrO_JklSWp-V0l08KsHqm70ycwYJ2LHHHeCpc3UIOjDd0msxulrumEY3Q6JQZKzDLQIa8jrxeb1bAN8aKSEmHZIr6FLD&sig=AHIEtbQcoVWD7nra3YH_vWAGGrRyOosVVw
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
Bushman says there is a strong circumstantial case that the Smiths joined the Presbtyerian church in 1824 rather than 1820.p. 570.
And you see this as an issue because....?
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
0
wenglund, on 21 April 2012 - 09:54 AM, said:
.
