Jump to content

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Sealings were the same as marriages.  Please don't tell me you've bought into the whole "Joseph never lived polygamy" stuff (?).  

What evidence do you have that Joseph did not consider any of the women he was sealed to, to be one of his plural wives?

I don't know about Bede, but I do not buy into the whole "'Joseph never lived polygamy' stuff."  But, if you believe that Joseph had sexual relations with ALL of those to whom he was sealed it is you who are on a historical limb without any warrant.

It is clear that Joseph did not have sexual relations with ALL of those to whom he was sealed.

I like to remind those scandalized by polygamy of a few things.

1.  Don Bradley has probably done more research on LDS polygamy than anyone.  He began his research as a non-believer and ended his research as a believer (I am not suggesting that researching polygamy leads to conversion only that researching polygamy does not preclude conversion or return in this case).

2.  Of the two positions, "Joseph never had sex with anyone but Emma," and "Joseph Smith was a sexual predator pursuing sexual relationships with as many and varied partners as he could reasonably get away with;" the MOST likely based on the data is that Joseph never had sex with anyone but Emma.  I think that less likely than that some of the polygamous marriages involved consummation and perhaps rare sexual relations beyond this.  No matter how much one despises Joseph Smith or polygamy or both, nobody can know what God did or didn't communicate with him.  What we can know is that a very small number of folks and not Joseph's closest acquaintances considered his activities regarding polygamy libido driven (maybe).  The vast majority of the conservative Christian folks who knew Joseph considered Joseph Smith's activities regarding polygamy to be a product of his reception of divine communications to practice polygamy.  This is because while we cannot know if any specific sexual acts occurred, we can be reasonably certain, Joseph was not "sleeping around."  And I think a powerful question becomes, if Joseph did not teach polygamy so he could sleep around, why did he teach it?   I submit it was because he received it from God.

3. I do not suggest that the living of polygamy was a sinless endeavor, only that the historical record does not support the idea that it was a libido driven endeavor.  At the very least, it appears that Joseph Smith was not honest with Emma ALL of the time (though Emma's presentation evidences that she was not always relaying truth in her telling of what happened either).  One can question the consequences of complete honesty and the situation Joseph was placed in, but I think acknowledging sinful deception is a more solid position that claiming there was nothing of the sort.

Anyway, I am thankful to not live Polygamy.  I would be a zero woman man in all likelihood.  I am not a fan for this reason and others.  But when I try to remove my prejudice, my presentism, and other biases; I just cannot crow from the rooftop how evil Joseph must have been.  I do not think there is evidence for that.  Oh, and the BOM is ... extraordinary and ....

Charity, TOm

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/15/2019 at 8:10 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other, so I'll try to be clear.

Epistemic obligation = when is a person obliged to believe something

Believe something until it is disproven = NOT my epistemic obligation

Do not believe something until it is proven = my epistemic obligation

This conversation begin because you said people can't explain the Book of Mormon away so it must be true. My point was that I don't have to explain it away. I don't have to disprove it. That's not my epistemic obligation. I have my personal experiences of Catholicism. Catholicism has been proven to me. I do not have to go and disprove any other religion. I don't have to disprove the Book of Mormon in order to not believe in Mormonism.

That was my point.

I am a fan of what you wrote here!

I am a fan of Catholicism in general.

However, it is the inability to explain the BOM from a Catholic perspective that means I am today and probably will forever be a LDS.  Before I ask what subjective experiences I have had (testimony), I ask what does reason indicate.  For me it is clear that I cannot explain the BOM without involving the supernatural.  There is no atheistic explanation that exists that satisfies the objective data.

I do not know what brings you here (I know you have been here a long time and are more active than I am).  But, if you do not feel the need to investigate the CoJCoLDS because you KNOW the Catholic Eucharist is transubstantiated, I do not think a proper understanding of LDS teachings means I should upbraid you for your non-investigation or even your unwillingness to pray to know if the BOM is true.  I commend you for your faith and if God ever told me that He was not part of the CoJCoLDS, I expect I would be at confession in less than 24 hours.

I am confident that sincere seekers find what God needs them to find.

Charity, TOm

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 3/16/2019 at 12:40 AM, Bede said:

Stephen Hawking ...Albert Einstein.

And to that I say this: There are two slam dunks for Mormonism that have yet to be explained away by any critic, including yourself.

1) The testimonies of the witnesses

2) The coming forth of the Book of Mormon

If it turns out, hypothetically, that nothing else is true about the claims of the church, these two powerful elements (really one--the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon) would still make Mormonism true. 

I take your anecdotal 15% and raise you the Book of Mormon.

(small print quoted just for fun, largely unrelated to my post).

Hello Bede,

I hope Bill Reel, @DBMormon, will respond, but I don't see what I have missed in the following narrative.

Bill Reel once viewed his podcast as a means to "strengthen the feeble knees."  He was informed about MANY issues with the CoJCoLDS.  If he was unaware of the contents of all in the CES letter, I would be surprised.  And yet he believed.

He said in his podcast, “No, I agree with, I agree with you.  If the BOM is not historical then what Joseph pulled of was a level of genius that puts him in the maybe the top 3 or 4 most incredible acts of intelligence and cohesiveness that I have every seen.”

This seems to align well with his position from just a few years ago.  A position that asserted the CoJCoLDS was God's church and the issues needed to be explored so we can "strengthen the feeble knees."

Only now as a non-believer who seeks to expose believers progressively to the problems (progressively because he doesn't want them to tune out and remain blissfully LDS) he still admits the above.

When I called that out and said it was what you said above (a much more powerful position than the piles of problems he dwells upon), he responds by explaining the key part of the above is:

Quote

No, I agree with, I agree with you.  If the BOM is not historical then what Joseph pulled of was a level of genius that puts him in the maybe the top 3 or 4 most incredible acts of intelligence and cohesiveness that I have every seen.”

Keep in mind that context means everything


3 or 4 most incredible acts of intelligence and cohesiveness that I have every seen.

I am not informed or aware of the details of every act of genius in the world.  I am instead pointing to the idea that in my limited exposure to the world and its history, this level of genius would be at the top of my awareness of that world history.  

Now he would have us believe, he said this because he has not been exposed to the great works of genius present in this world and thus the BOM is only great relative to what he has seen.  This is a remarkable position.  It relies upon his profession of ignorance and naivete that I consider extraordinary.  I just don't get it.  

I submit that if he makes the above claim because he is so unexposed to genius in the world, we can confidently conclude that he is not much of a witness against the CoJCoLDS either.

I further submit that he made the claim for a few reasons and being ignorant and naive are not among them. 

1. He truly recognizes it to be true (and being unfamiliar with genius has nothing to do with recognition).

2. He has emotionally rejected the CoJCoLDS because of the harm it does in his opinion to LGBT folks and he expects this to carry the day regardless of how powerful the existence of the BOM is.

3. He wanted to lure in those believers by conceding things that in his mind do not contain the weight (again EMOTIONAL weight) other things contain.

4. He didn't expect cold heartless people (like me) or wonderful compassionate people like you and Jim Bennett, to find in his admission (and in the strength of the BOM) a reason to weather the storm that is the BOA or LGBT issues or ...

I don't know how he walks it back.  I think it was his pre-disbelief view and is no weaker because the church put out a policy in 2015 with which he compassionately (and passionately/emotionally) disagrees.  I think it is unlikely that he has encounter so little of the genius in the world that we should view this like a statement from an 8 year old or something.  

Before I had a testimony, I believed that "Joseph couldn't do it and the devil wouldn't do it."  I still do.  My conviction that Joseph couldn't do it has only grown stronger over the last almost 20 years.

Charity, TOm

 

Edited by TOmNossor
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you capable of having a conversation without antagonizing other board participants? Your rudeness is wearisome.

Wait...let me get this right.  MiserereNobis butts into a conversation and trolls questions that I did not ask her.  Then she tries to antagonize me by suggesting she just might not want to respond to me.  Calling her bluff (and her presumptuousness), I take her up on her offer.  And then you, without anyone's invitation, interrupt this exchange to gaslight a conversation as the self-proclaimed board police without adding anything to the conversation.  And I'm the rude one?

Right.

Do me a favor and take a page from MiserereNovis's book...don't respond to me.  Preferably, never, ever, ever.  Ever.

 

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Wait...let me get this right.  MiserereNobis butts into a conversation and trolls questions that I did not ask her.  Then she tries to antagonize me by suggesting she just might not want to respond to me.  Calling her bluff (and her presumptuousness), I take her up on her offer.  And then you, without anyone's invitation, interrupt this exchange to gaslight a conversation as the self-proclaimed board police without adding anything to the conversation.  And I'm the rude one?

Right.

Do me a favor and take a page from MiserereNovis's book...don't respond to me.  Preferably, never, ever, ever.  Ever.

 

I made the same mistake because of the image of his avatar but MiserereNobis, is a male. And when you react to Happy and to myself that you don't want us to respond to you, it feels pretty childish. Like closing your ears and singing. But to each their own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By HappyJackWagon
      I've been listening to the new Mormon Discussion podcast interview with Patrick Mason. I've heard a number of his other interviews and always appreciate his perspective. He seems to be a true believer who is empathetic to the struggle many are facing in faith transitions. That empathy is often missing in church on Sunday and on the internet. While I don't always agree with him, Mason's approach and tone is something I really support. He acknowledges that sometimes the church can sin collectively and may be in need of repentance for false doctrines that were taught from the pulpit but are now disavowed and "the worst day in Mormon history" at Mountain Meadows. But he also calls for respect and understanding for leaders. I think he gives the true believer and the doubter a lot to think about.
      At the beginning of the podcast Bill makes a great observation about how hope is sometimes discussed in the church as simply a starting point that should move towards knowledge but that many experiencing faith crisis/transition started with knowledge and now hope is all that is left. Not belief. Not even faith. Hope is what many of us hang on to by our fingernails but sometimes we have to adjust our grip of what we hope for or exercise faith in.
      I love how Mason talks about Hope as being more than just a starting point of faith. He talks about how hope is foundational to Christianity and is not some cute principle meant only for beginners.
      This got me thinking about the language of faith crisis and faith transition. I think we sometimes misuse the word faith in referring to crisis and transition. It seems more accurate (for me at least) to talk about a belief crisis or belief transition as it relates to the church. I believe we are intended to have faith in Christ but I have made the mistake in the past of placing my faith in the church. The church and Christ are not the same things.
      There's a lot of good stuff in this podcast to chew on. I recommend it.
      http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/2016/06/premium-patrick-mason-planted/
       
    • By Maestrophil
      Hi all.  
      This weekend, my wife's visiting teaching companion asked to be released as a VT.  My wife reached out to her and said she hoped everything was OK, and that she loved VT with her.  She got a text back reciprocating those sentiments, but not much more information.  Then Sunday morning, this same site was released from her other ward calling from the pulpit.  Then the bishop asked if he could seek with us after the block.
      When we met with him after in his office, he confided with us that this site and her husband had recently discovered and read the CES letter.  They told the bishop they wanted to be released from their callings and needed to take a break from church.  He asked if they were still willing to read the scriptures and pray, and they said after all that they have "discovered" the don't feel like they can.  He hen asked them if they would be willing to talk to other members.  That is when out bishop thought of my wife and I.  He knew that with my experiences with my family leaving the church in a very antagonistic way with me that I had read the CES letter and chosen to maintain my faith and my membership.  He asked us to go and see this couple and talk to them.  
      We relied we would love to show them we love them and that we don't judge them for struggling with these things.  I also informed the bishop that I would not want to get into trying to give a point by point rebuttal to the couple, and that my experience is that most people who talk like they are talking have already made a choice on what they believe about the letter and are not looking for answers.  The bishop has not read the letter and asked me if I thought he should.  I told him that it probably would not serve him well to read it, and that his advice to be proactive spiritually is probably good advice coming from a bishop.
      My appeal to you all is - help me understand how you would approach this "assignment".  What would you do, and avoid doing?  How do you even begin such a conversation?  How do we avoid getting into a legalistic feeling debate about the letter, while still eating them know we know of it's contents and have resolved the dissonance for ourselves?
      I want to serve this couple well, and welcome your input!
       
      Thanks!
      MP
    • By rockpond
      In an interview with Gina Colvin on the A Thoughtful Faith podcast, Greg Prince discusses *this* Mormon moment.  Here's a link to the podcast page.  It's a great podcast -- worth the listen regardless of your opinion on the issues.
      “I don’t know the way forward yet.  I think that it’s going to be a combination of people at the top exercising their inspiration and the people at the bottom exercising their inspiration as well and somehow coming to a comfortable interface in the middle that takes advantage of both sources.” ~~Greg Prince
      He talks about the new policy.  Church growth, activity, and the future.
      He asked an interesting question:  What happens when today's 25 year old eventually becomes a Stake President?
      Also, he's currently writing a book on the Church and LGBT issues.  Should be a fascinating read.
       
    • By HappyJackWagon
      Bill Reel was recently interviewed on Mormon Stories about FAIR erasing him from their history. It's a fascinating discussion where they talk about the state of apologetics in general and Bill's personal experience with FAIR and other apologists like Brian Hales who kindly told Bill "I hope your podcast dies." I'm curious if anyone else listened and has any thoughts about the state of FAIR and apologetics in general or about Bill's experience in specific.
      http://mormonstories.org/bill-reel-discusses-his-falling-out-with-fair-and-his-faithful-dissent-with-lds-policy/
    • By Robert F. Smith
      TheSkepticChristian has asked me to post this new topic based on the extensive debunking by FAIRMORMON at http://debunking-cesletter.com/ of the ever-changing "Letter to a CES Director."
       
      TheSkepticChristian finds that that letter "is full of bad arguments and patternicity," and calls particular attention to what the FAIRMORMON debunking says at the end:

      "By academic standards, The CES Letter is inadequate. It makes numerous non-peer reviewed claims that ignore what the actual peer-reviewed literature has said on these matters. Due to their biases and incomplete representations of the topics they address, such publications are often classified as spin or propaganda by scholars" 
       
      Does FAIRMORMON do an adequate job in this case, or do you find it lacking in some way?
×
×
  • Create New...