For those who felt deceived

[Tsuzuki]

I would have also saved tens of thousands of dollars--I don't know and will probably never know what it was used for. It may as well have gone to the Jehova's Witnesses.

Would it help if you knew if that money went to help feed the hungry and clothe the naked?

And I would point out that even if ontologically false, the principles of the gospel still have intrinsic value if applied.

[Pahoran]

Let's focus, for the moment, on just this one evidence of Sylvia's - her belief JS was the father of her child.

There's no faith required to analyze this statement. Clearly, Sylvia saying that JS was Josephine's father meant that she had Joseph had the type of relationships that could lead to conception of a child. Either she lied about this or told the truth. There is no faith involved in that analysis. She was on her deathbed, and had very little reason to lie to her daughter. In addition, other wives - or family members of those wives - made statements (sought by the LDS church in order to prove to the RLDS that JS did practice polygamy, ironically) that also demonstrate that those particular women had that type of relationship with Joseph. Either they lied or they told the truth.

Actually there is a third alternative.

You wouldn't know about it of course, but informed, believing Latter-day Saints do.

It is entirely possible that Sylvia was saying that Joseph was Josephine's father in a doctrinal, rather than a biological sense. That is, that since Sylvia was sealed to Joseph, Josephine was therefore born into that covenant, regardless of whose DNA she inherits. To believing Latter-day Saints--a group of people whose social-doctrinal milieu you are remarkably incapable of comprehending--the sealing is more important and more relevant than biological paternity.

Therefore, your rather smugly binary truth set is no longer quite as pat as you assume, is it?

Regards,

Pahoran

[zerinus]

I am just glad you are aware that you can not prove anything.

I canâ??t prove anything to you; but I sure can prove something to myself. That is all I need to make my own decision. The only thing I can do for you is to tell you what decision I have made and why. How you choose to respond to that information is entirely up to you.

zerinus

[Daniel Peterson]

And how do you know this?

Before you answer the question, first define what it means to know, or what your definition of knowledge is.

That is a pretty heavy statement, and you better have some sort of proof or knowledge to back it up.

I believe that this board is a place for the exchange of opinions. Am I wrong on that?

My response -- somewhat but not entirely tongue in cheek; certainly not meriting your somewhat belligerent comment above -- is obviously premised on the proposition that Mormonism is true.

If Belgium is in Europe, it's not possible to know that Belgium is in South America. If Mormonism is true, it's not possible to know that Mormonism is false.

If P, then Q.

P.

Therefore Q.

But even if I were to adopt what seems to be your position, that Mormonism cannot truly be known to be either true or false, it would be impossible to know it to be false.

Not P and not Q.

Therefore not P.

Logic 101. It ought to be the law.

[Jeff K.]

Care to offer some evidence that I am a stupid person (other than I don't credence to beliefs about ghosts, spirits, seer stones, or whatever)?

Res ipsa loquitur

[zerinus]

What makes you say that they have come to a false conclusion? What makes you right and them wrong? I believe that you have come to a false conclusion. The Holy Spirit has testified to me that Mormonism is false, and it wasn't through warm and fuzzies.

That is your word against mine, I agree. We will just have to wait until the day of reckoning comes to know who is right and who is wrong. Nephiâ??s and Moroniâ??s words will ring true here:

2 Nephi 33

:

14 And you that will not partake of the goodness of God, and respect the words of the Jews, and also my words, and the words which shall proceed forth out of the mouth of the Lamb of God, behold, I bid you an everlasting farewell, for these words shall condemn you at the last day.

15 For what I seal on earth, shall be brought against you at the judgment bar; for thus hath the Lord commanded me, and I must obey. Amen.

Ether 12

:

38 And now I, Moroni, bid farewell unto the Gentiles, yea, and also unto my brethren whom I love, until we shall meet before the judgment-seat of Christ, where all men shall know that my garments are not spotted with your blood.

39 And then shall ye know that I have seen Jesus, and that he hath talked with me face to face, and that he told me in plain humility, even as a man telleth another in mine own language, concerning these things;

zerinus

[Mars]

Let Matt speak for himself.

Fair enough.

Regarding the open door policy and Stephen Hawking, he didn't strike me as a resolute atheist. He struck me as agnostic.

Calling our beliefs silly will get some pushback. Don't be surprised if someone calls you stupid. It's not a good response, and it's a personal attack rather than an attack on your views (which would be a quid pro quo) but come on. Do you mean to do that? Do you mean to minimize Mormon belief and label it silly knowing you'll provoke some reaction? Or did you lack the foresight to know what would happen if you did that? I certainly felt your comparison between us and Scientologists was tantamount to an attack on our intelligence. I just didn't respond in kind.

[Tarski]

QUOTE(Tarski @ Mar 15 2009, 04:12 PM)

Care to offer some evidence that I am a stupid person (other than I don't give credence to beliefs about ghosts, spirits, seer stones, or whatever)?

Res ipsa loquitur

Ya OK

By which you mean that it really is because I do not give credence to your beliefs about ghosts, spirits, seer stones, divinely mandated secret polygamy and so on.

Actually, I am pretty sure that you don't even know what you mean. It's as simple as the fact that I don't intellectually acquiesce to your nonevidential beliefs or even their plausibility (and am willing to say so). I don't agree with you so I am stupid. Nothing could be simpler.

[beastie]

Actually there is a third alternative.

You wouldn't know about it of course, but informed, believing Latter-day Saints do.

It is entirely possible that Sylvia was saying that Joseph was Josephine's father in a doctrinal, rather than a biological sense. That is, that since Sylvia was sealed to Joseph, Josephine was therefore born into that covenant, regardless of whose DNA she inherits. To believing Latter-day Saints--a group of people whose social-doctrinal milieu you are remarkably incapable of comprehending--the sealing is more important and more relevant than biological paternity.

Therefore, your rather smugly binary truth set is no longer quite as pat as you assume, is it?

Yes, Iâ??ve read this proposed theory before. I didnâ??t mention it because I didnâ??t think it worth mentioning, but I should have anticipated someone would still attempt it.

This theory makes no sense in the context of Sylviaâ??s statements to Josephine. If Sylvia was referring simply to Josephine being sealed to JS (and taken from her biological father in the next life, of course) then she wouldnâ??t have stressed the great secrecy involved. She also would not single out Josephine alone, because the other children would also belong to Joseph in the next life. You also ignore the other statements â?? including legal affidavits â?? that demonstrate JS did have marital relations with at least some of his wives.

These three elements combine to make the theory that it referred to the sealing alone highly unlikely.

Again, the fact that believers struggle so mightily against this indicates that it is, indeed, a very troubling topic.

[Cold Steel]

Is it possible people leave because they know the church is wrong?

Things look so clear when one is a teenager. As you grow older and see the prophecies fulfilled; that the church isn't going to suddenly be stopped by the Internet, you may yet reconsider (unless you lose the Spirit through transgression). Keep in mind that looking back in the Book of Mormon, at things that things look so obviously backdated and contrived, are actually more complicated than you thought. The Book of Mormon made some astounding prophecies that have come to pass. The United States indeed became a nation above all others. The church did prosper and is filling the Earth despite the fact that in 1830 it seemed like an impossible task. There are dozens of small religious movements competing with Joseph Smith and Mormonism at the time and most of them are dead or dying. This is the only Christian church that claims divine oversight, which is what Daniel means when he says that the kingdom would be like a stone "without hands" that would not be left to others.

It seems a shame that you're abandoning the church at the very age when I found it. The chances are, people who want to be freed of the obligations and responsibilities of the church can usually find reasons to leave it. Chances are, though, that you'll live to see many of the "calamities" the Lord warned would be coming. As one who's been all over the Internet himself, I can say that you're building your foundation on sand. If you really want to put your faith to the test, read the Book of Mormon with a degree of humility and examine some of the great works (Truman Madsen's On Sacred Ground series, David J. Ridges 50 Signs of the Times and the Second Coming of Christ). Many ex-LDS seem to be actively involved in a continuing effort to convince themselves that they did the right thing. I hope you'll at least keep an open mind over the coming months and years. You'll see many things happen that will snap you back or send you out further.

[ttribe]

I could have spent my time pursuing other worthy causes. I could have been going on dates and attending college instead of going door to door trying to convince people of something for which I had no real evidence.

In my 20's I could have guiltlessly had normal natural libido driven thoughts (and actions) about the opposite sex. The same kind that my currently successful and happy friends enjoyed in their youth.

I could have read hundreds more books and finished my PhD sooner. Would I be at a better university now? Who knows?

I might have married someone who believed that love trumped a specific man made religion and that would have stayed with me and let me be free to come to my honest and sincere conclusions about the fringe religion I was born into. Instead she left me (and not for anything I did to her or any infidelity) for being honest with myself (that's love?)

I would have also saved tens of thousands of dollars--I don't know and will probably never know what it was used for. It may as well have gone to the Jehova's Witnesses.

I could have understood things from a scientific perspective without struggling to reconcile with superstitions, an eternal mammal God, and Kolob global floods, and angels, and devils----oh I could have avoided being scared of the devil --what utter silliness.

I remember when I was 10 and moved to NY, I bragged to my catholic friends that my religion was simple and straightforward with no elaborate rituals.

I wish I had known that I was dead wrong about that. Within minutes of first going through the temple I felt a sense of having been deceived. But I submerged the feelings.

I also felt outrage when I stumbled across Nibley's absurd "second layer of meaning" defense of the BoA translation while in a university library.

Much could have been better if only my parents had not used the words "I know that this church is true". Because, they did not know it anymore that I did or any of the missionaries (some of whom quit) did.

Absolute honesty about what they really did or didn't know could have saved me some serious pain and saved me years of time.

Bitter much? Seriously, this is one of the more revealing statements regarding motivation I've seen in a while.

[ttribe]

Actually, I am pretty sure that you don't even know what you mean. It's as simple as the fact that I don't intellectually acquiesce to your nonevidential beliefs or even their plausibility (and am willing to say so). I don't agree with you so I am stupid. Nothing could be simpler.

Hmmm...that sounds awfully familiar...not that I condone Matthew's statement to you, but it sure is interesting to see you reacting to being treated the way you treat believers around here.

[ttribe]

Again, the fact that believers struggle so mightily against this indicates that it is, indeed, a very troubling topic.

Or, it indicates that there is no end to the line of people willing to dredge it up as some kind of prima facie evidence of JS being a "false prophet"...funny how you skipped over that explanation.

[DispensatorMysteriorum]

I joined the LDS church at the age of nineteen in 1976. (yes, I'm old)

At the time, I was attending a small private college nestled in Virginia mountains.

Was it this one --- svu.edu ?

[JLFuller]

Let's focus, for the moment, on just this one evidence of Sylvia's - her belief JS was the father of her child.

There's no faith required to analyze this statement. Clearly, Sylvia saying that JS was Josephine's father meant that she had Joseph had the type of relationships that could lead to conception of a child. Either she lied about this or told the truth. There is no faith involved in that analysis. She was on her deathbed, and had very little reason to lie to her daughter. In addition, other wives - or family members of those wives - made statements (sought by the LDS church in order to prove to the RLDS that JS did practice polygamy, ironically) that also demonstrate that those particular women had that type of relationship with Joseph. Either they lied or they told the truth.

These evidences were sought by church leaders, and were obtained from JS's wives who were still believers. There is no cause to suspect inaccuracies, distortions, or falsehoods in these reports.

BTW, in regards to the entire thread and other posts made therein, the fact that believers resist something for which there is ample evidence demonstrates that this information is troubling. The troubling nature of just this one issue, in combination with the many other issues that could be raised, ought to be enough to convince anyone that people sometimes leave the church for no reason other than that they no longer believe is it true.

to sevenbak

Hmmm. Tarski didn't say that others who learn these things should react the same way he did. In fact, he specifically said that not everyone reacts the same way. Of course, he also said that some people learn about Xenu and still stick with scientology. That you drew the conclusion that his remarks meant that others should leave the church as he did is pretty insulting to Scientology. Did you mean to be so dismissive and insulting to the sacred beliefs of others?

Lets get right to the fun part first. It is fun because it is so easy to refute. " She was on her deathbed, and had very little reason to lie to her daughter." I worked in a hospital once and one of the patients was on his death bed or near to it. Everytime one of the staff entered his room he would sit upright and grab an arm and shout anxiously. He was certain the Indians were going to attack. He was absolutley sure of it and insisted that we break out the Winchesters. People on their last legs often become delusional and their final fantasies come to life for them. Who knows the truth of the story but claiming that a deathbed statement is conclusive is just not supported by the reality of life.

"There's no faith required to analyze this statement" I want to be sensitive about this but I can tell you from professional experience that some women are so focused on other people (men) that they imagine all sorts of things that just didn't happen. In the environment of the times, even the so called eye witnesses have to be challenged. There is no way in a court today that a great many of the "witnesses" to those events would be allowed to testify. Now don't go getting a cranky on me here if you think I am going to deny Joseph Smith's polygamy because I am not. He practiced it and no one denies it. But just who he had normal marital relations with is not settled.

[Mortal Man]

Tarski, beastie et al.,

Do you think the world would be a better place today if Joseph Smith had never lived? In other words, suppose you suddenly achieved 100% success in your goal to open the eyes of Mormons by teaching them logic and reason. Suppose the First Presidency announced in General Conference that "Tarski and beastie are right" and they disbanded the church. Beyond a sense of vindication and gleeful satisfaction, would that bring you an inner peace and lasting happiness? Do you think that a world of reasoning skeptics is better than a world of deluded believers? If so, then how exactly would that lead to a higher functioning society?

[ERayR]

You're right of course. But it would be extremely niave and arrogant to suppose this doesn't apply to you.

Oh I am quit satisfied with my choice. So much so that I don't spend my time looking and digging for derogitory information about other religions. Did you ever ask yourself why you were not at peace. Not that there aren't those who are non-LDS who are at peace with their choice. It's just the ones I know and count as my friends and aquaintances don't spend their time denigrating others faith. They just go around emulating the savior and doing good.

[OMWO2]

This is a sincere question for those who left the church because you felt that the church hid something from you, or who advocate the church be more forthcoming about what you consider the negatives. Assuming you were able to learn these things sooner, what difference would it have made on whether you left the church or not. I don't see how it makes any difference if some of the things that turn you away from the church are learned earlier or later. Perhaps you can explain it.

Of course it is hard to predict what would have happened. However, I can 'assume' that since I was a completely active member until I became aware of a few controversial things and then I left. Now contrast this with say, Dr. D. Peterson, who claims to have known the controversial things since 17 or 18 and is 'still' an active believer. That is my best explanation.

[beastie]

Was it this one --- svu.edu ?

You must mean in its preLDS phase. No, that wasn't the college I attended.

Lets get right to the fun part first. It is fun because it is so easy to refute. " She was on her deathbed, and had very little reason to lie to her daughter." I worked in a hospital once and one of the patients was on his death bed or near to it. Everytime one of the staff entered his room he would sit upright and grab an arm and shout anxiously. He was certain the Indians were going to attack. He was absolutley sure of it and insisted that we break out the Winchesters. People on their last legs often become delusional and their final fantasies come to life for them. Who knows the truth of the story but claiming that a deathbed statement is conclusive is just not supported by the reality of life.

"There's no faith required to analyze this statement" I want to be sensitive about this but I can tell you from professional experience that some women are so focused on other people (men) that they imagine all sorts of things that just didn't happen. In the environment of the times, even the so called eye witnesses have to be challenged. There is no way in a court today that a great many of the "witnesses" to those events would be allowed to testify. Now don't go getting a cranky on me here if you think I am going to deny Joseph Smith's polygamy because I am not. He practiced it and no one denies it. But just who he had normal marital relations with is not settled.

Thereâ??s no evidence that Sylvia was out of her mind on her deathbed.

So are you suggesting that all of the women (and family members) who provided statements for the LDS church asserting their marital relations with JS â?? and by that I mean physical relations â?? were lying or crazy?

mortal man:

Do you think the world would be a better place today if Joseph Smith had never lived? In other words, suppose you suddenly achieved 100% success in your goal to open the eyes of Mormons by teaching them logic and reason. Suppose the First Presidency announced in General Conference that "Tarski and beastie are right" and they disbanded the church. Beyond a sense of vindication and gleeful satisfaction, would that bring you an inner peace and lasting happiness? Do you think that a world of reasoning skeptics is better than a world of deluded believers? If so, then how exactly would that lead to a higher functioning society?

I donâ??t have a crystal ball or a peep stone.

I have no idea if the world would be a better place today if JS had never lived, and I have no idea if a world of reasoning skeptics would be better than a world of deluded believers. I do not have a goal of opening the eyes of mormons by teaching them logic and reason.

I have absolutely no interest in seeing the LDS church disbanded, and it would give me no sense of vindication and gleeful satisfaction.

Any other questions that have no justification other than in your own over-active imagination?

[ERayR]

His wives knew what happened, and "something" happened that caused Sylvia Sessions to believe her daughter, Josephine, was Joseph's daughter, as she told her on her deathbed.

Now, obviously, Sylvia thinking that Josephine was Joseph's daughter does not automatically mean that he was her father. Women can be wrong about that, particularly if another man is involved..say one's legal husband. But what it does mean is that something happened to make Sylvia think that Joseph was the father, and there's only one something that normally leads women to draw that conclusion.

IMO, it's fantasy to pretend that there isn't good evidence that the something took place between JS and some, if not many, of his wives, particularly when several of them, or other firsthand witnesses (such as family members who saw them share a bed at night), stated as much.

And why not they were married. So many have such a hatred for polygamy that it seems to throw you all int fits and shakes to think that some willingly and happily lived that principle in all its aspects. Through good and bad and the full range of human emotions men and women entered into the polygamous marriages and picked their way through the minefield of mistakes and most learned how to live harmoniously and happily in these relationships. Then you and those like you sit back 100 years later with a 21st century outlook on things, knowing nothing but your own jelious natures, and find fault with them. With all your self rightious arrogance and all you think you know you still know nothing. Those people tamed a land left a lasting legacy and you spend your time trying to destroy it. What is your leagacy.

[ERayR]

What makes you say that they have come to a false conclusion? What makes you right and them wrong? I believe that you have come to a false conclusion. The Holy Spirit has testified to me that Mormonism is false, and it wasn't through warm and fuzzies.

That is fine, then go live something else.

[ERayR]

Yes, Iâ??ve read this proposed theory before. I didnâ??t mention it because I didnâ??t think it worth mentioning, but I should have anticipated someone would still attempt it.

This theory makes no sense in the context of Sylviaâ??s statements to Josephine. If Sylvia was referring simply to Josephine being sealed to JS (and taken from her biological father in the next life, of course) then she wouldnâ??t have stressed the great secrecy involved. She also would not single out Josephine alone, because the other children would also belong to Joseph in the next life. You also ignore the other statements â?? including legal affidavits â?? that demonstrate JS did have marital relations with at least some of his wives.

These three elements combine to make the theory that it referred to the sealing alone highly unlikely.

Again, the fact that believers struggle so mightily against this indicates that it is, indeed, a very troubling topic.

And you know this for a certainty, How?

[beastie]

And you know this for a certainty, How?

I know what for a certainty how? I'm going to guess you mean how I know Sylvia would have not singled out Josephine? I'm just using common sense - if all Sylvia meant was that Josephine was sealed to JS and nothing more, then all of her children could have been included in this statement, not just Sylvia. In addition, if all that was involved was a sealing, no actual relationship, why would secrecy be required at all?

Or maybe you mean how do I know about the affidavits the other women signed? Joseph F. Smith collected affidavits from wives and other eyewitnesses in 1869. This was for the purpose of persuading Joseph's children that Joseph actually practiced polygamy, contrary to what their mother was telling them. Andrew Jenson later added more statements to these in 1887, and Joseph Fielding Smith added even more in 1905. Other evidence was gathered in the Temple Lot case, as well. These were all statements that were obtained from faithful members of the church from other faithful members of the church, and included veiled references to marital intimacies. Joseph Noble, for example, in his Temple Lot testimony stated that his sister, Louisa, and her new husband, the prophet Joseph, slept together at his house.

Let me ask you this:

Did Joseph Smith have the moral right to have marital relations with his plural wives, in the eyes of God?

[ttribe]

Did Joseph Smith have the moral right to have marital relations with his plural wives, in the eyes of God?

Go start a new thread. You've long since dragged this one off-topic.

[Mighty Curelom]

Tarski, beastie et al.,

Do you think the world would be a better place today if Joseph Smith had never lived?

Nope. Those who followed JS would have just attached themselves to another sect. Their descendants would be Baptists or Seventh Day Adventists or some other variation of Christianity, rather than Mormons. And ex-Mormons would be posting on an ex-Evangelical board, discussing biblical inerrancy and a 6000 year old earth, and complaining that they would have come to their senses earlier had they been given some key piece of information (the story of Noah's ark apparently not sufficiently absurd to warrant disbelief).