Are there any valid criticisms?

[beastie]

That is an assertion you cannot plausibly claim to have a good faith belief in.

I am the thread originator. The purpose of the thread is what I said it was at the outset.

I have told you several times that I find your spiteful and ancient vendetta to be off-topic. Kindly refrain from raising it in this thread. In fact, please remove yourself from this thread. Entirely.

If you insist on your obsessive vendetta, then raise it elsewhere. But it is not wanted on this thread.

Is that at last clear to you?

Iâ??m completely clear on the fact that you donâ??t want your past behavior to be discussed on this thread, despite the fact that you engaged in, for all practical purposes, the same behavior that you discussed in your OP. I will make this my last post on the topic due to the fact that Iâ??ve provided enough information.

Your opening post was devoted entirely to the fact that no honest critic would exploit such a tragedy for polemic purposes. That is the point of the thread, by the OP. You seem to be insinuating that your actions could not be called exploitation because you only briefly mentioned the event. I find that unpersuasive. You brought up the tragedy for one reason, and one reason only â?? to make a polemic point against apostates â?? to wit, that the stories they tell do not resemble facts.

You then insisted you were always referring to the brother, despite the fact that there was no indication in the thread, nor in any of the news clippings, that his brother was an apostate of the LDS church, and despite the fact that your statements on the original thread make it painfully clear you were talking about Gino as the apostate in question.

My point is this â?? when you used the Gino reference, you did not think you were doing anything dishonest or exploitative. This fact should make you pause in your eagerness to label Dr. W dishonest and exploitative â?? but sadly, it doesnâ??t.

BTW, how many times have I brought this up since it occurred? As far as I recall, this is the first time Iâ??ve brought it up, and I brought it up because I could not believe that you were actually making an issue out of this after your use of the Gino incident. That hardly constitutes obsession, and it certainly is not a vendetta. It was directly related to your OP, and if any critic of the church had engaged in this behavior, you would be the first to point it out.

I invite any interested parties to actually read the thread I linked. It will provide all the information you need to evaluate my accusation.

With that, I will let Pahoran continue in his self-assured moral rectitude.

[ttribe]

The fact that Joseph Smith was indeed a "conplex, contradictory" individual does not excuse his actions. He exhibited many characteristics seen in the complex and contradictory FLDS "prophets" and leaders of today, at least one of whom has gone to prison for such behavior.

In light of the indictments and or convictions of FLDS leaders, what do you think are the chances that Joseph Smith would have been sent to prison today based on the evidence shown below from Church Archives?

Reference and note regarding Joseph Smiths polyandry and sexual predation of a minor.

The May 1887 edition of an official Church periodical, "The Historical Record" (volume VI) includes an article written by President Joseph F. Smith and Andrew Jenson (Assistant Church Historian), documenting the plural marriages of Joseph Smith. This article lists twenty-seven plural wives who were sealed to Joseph during the last three years of his life. This list includes Josephâ??s polyandrous unions (marriages to other menâ??s wives),

as well as his numerous sealings to teenage girls

. A search of the Family History Archives on lds.org yields ancestral files for many of Josephâ??s polygamous wives. Two of the ancestral files from the Family History Archives are those of Helen Mar Kimball and Zina Diantha Huntington. One need only look at the dates to determine that

Helen was married to Joseph Smith at the age of 14

. Zina was already married to Henry Jacobs at the time of her sealing to Joseph Smith. Zinaâ??s journal makes it clear that she and Henry were living together as husband and wife when

Joseph secretly took her as his own plural wife

. The extant diaries, autobiographical sketches, journals, and correspondences, of some of Josephâ??s polygamous wives, further demonstrate the undeniable fact that there was a sexual dimension to their relationship with the Prophet.

Warren Jeffs is serving 10 years in a Utah in prison (convicted on two counts of being an accomplice to rape) for the same behaviors described in the above paragraph.

Fortunately for society, most of us are not as "contradictory and complex" and Joseph Smith and Warren Jeffs.

Nothing like a little present-ism to really put the dodge on.

[ttribe]

I invite any interested parties to actually read the thread I linked. It will provide all the information you need to evaluate my accusation.

With that, I will let Pahoran continue in his self-assured moral rectitude.

I think I speak for many when I say - I don't FREAKING CARE ANYMORE! The fact is DrW is hanging onto this morally reprehensible position in an effort to advance his polemic agenda, despite calls from both apologist and critic alike (yes, beastie, I mean you, and I commend you for it) to let it go.

[beastie]

Dr W -

Did you read my earlier statement about how the same reasoning could be used to build a case against atheism?

Is it not possible that a mentally ill atheist who had suffered all his or her life could conclude that it was merciful to kill his/her children in order to spare them needless suffering as well?

And could that event justly be used to criticize the lack of belief in an afterlife?

Moclips is correct in his assessment. It is a loophole. But the reality is that this is really not a prevalent danger in regards to embracing LDS theology. The rarity of this event alone testifies to that.

You can find better, more just examples. Mental illness is random and cruel. It strikes people from all walks of life, from all religions, from all cultures. The mental illness will usually be expressed in the "language" of the host culture. So since this woman was LDS, she used LDS theology to justify her decision. If she were a fundamentalist EV, she would have used a slightly different justification - maybe to save the children from Satan. If she were an atheist, she would have used a different justification. The fact that the same event could occur regardless of the specific belief attached to the act indicates that it is not criticism with a great deal of meaning or significance.

[ttribe]

Dr W -

Did you read my earlier statement about how the same reasoning could be used to build a case against atheism?

Is it not possible that a mentally ill atheist who had suffered all his or her life could conclude that it was merciful to kill his/her children in order to spare them needless suffering as well?

And could that event justly be used to criticize the lack of belief in an afterlife?

Moclips is correct in his assessment. It is a loophole. But the reality is that this is really not a prevalent danger in regards to embracing LDS theology. The rarity of this event alone testifies to that.

You can find better, more just examples. Mental illness is random and cruel. It strikes people from all walks of life, from all religions, from all cultures. The mental illness will usually be expressed in the "language" of the host culture. So since this woman was LDS, she used LDS theology to justify her decision. If she were a fundamentalist EV, she would have used a slightly different justification - maybe to save the children from Satan. If she were an atheist, she would have used a different justification. The fact that the same event could occur regardless of the specific belief attached to the act indicates that it is not criticism with a great deal of meaning or significance.

Thank you...again, I have tried making this exact same point and it fell on his deaf, stubborn, ears. Perhaps it will mean more coming from you.

[beastie]

Thank you...again, I have tried making this exact same point and it fell on his deaf, stubborn, ears. Perhaps it will mean more coming from you.

Maybe it will help if Dr. W knows that I think he made valid criticisms in his other listed items. I just don't think this particular one is valid.

It is sometimes easier to "hear" things from someone on one's own side of the fence.

[John Williams]

Deborah and John W.;

The fact that Joseph Smith was indeed a "conplex, contradictory" individual does not excuse his actions. He exhibited many characteristics seen in the complex and contradictory FLDS "prophets" and leaders of today, at least one of whom has gone to prison for such behavior.

No argument here. Many of Joseph Smith's actions were reprehensible, but some critics seem to want to paint him as 100% pure evil (which is wrong, when everyone knows I'm the only pure evil person around here). He wasn't all "greatness and integrity," nor was he all evil and deceit. You don't have to believe Joseph was a prophet (I certainly don't) to believe he wasn't all bad.

And comparing him to Warren Jeffs does seem to be just a bit of presentism.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Maybe it will help if Dr. W knows that I think he made valid criticisms in his other listed items. I just don't think this particular one is valid.

It is sometimes easier to "hear" things from someone on one's own side of the fence.

I agree that that some issues are more valid than others, I commend you for your input on this issue.

[Scott Lloyd]

Some members create a Joseph Smith that is nearly "god-like," in fact a recent Ensign used those exact words.

Can you link us to that particular article? I would like to examine the words in context.

[John Williams]

Can you link us to that particular article? I would like to examine the words in context.

It's in the December 2008 issue under "I Remember Joseph":

Jesse N. Smith, the Prophetâ??s cousin, said: â??[Joseph Smith was] incomparably the most God-like man I ever saw. â?¦ I know that by nature he was incapable of lying and deceitfulness, possessing the greatest kindness and nobility of character. I felt when in his presence that he could read me through and through. I know he was all that he claimed to be.â?

Of course, Jesse N. Smith was 9 years old when Joseph died. Most of the people quoted in the article were likewise small children during Joseph's life.

[DrW]

Maybe it will help if Dr. W knows that I think he made valid criticisms in his other listed items. I just don't think this particular one is valid.

It is sometimes easier to "hear" things from someone on one's own side of the fence.

beastie;

Thank you for your kind understanding, and your (aproximate 90%) agreement with my stated reasons for leaving the Church. If I understand what you are saying in the last sentence of your post, you do not agree that religion must take responsibility for acts committed as a direct result of the irrational doctrine that they teach.

I must be a glutton for punishment, but I will try one more time to convince you that they should.

Let's look at Christian Science, and consider a recent case wherein parents, because of an unfounded and illogical belief that prayer alone would heal an ill child, did not seek medical attention and the child died as a result.

I maintain that this death would have not otherwise occurred but for the unfounded and illogical beliefs of Christian Science with regard to the power of prayer and healing. Were it not for the irrational tenets of Chriatian Science, the child would not have died. Yet the courts have been unwilling to come down on Christian Science, even though some in the legal system and state child protective services would like to do so.

There are many examples of these kinds of outcomes from Christian Science, Islam (honor killings of young females), and other (especially conservative fundamentalist) religions including, unfortunately, Mormonism. If you feel that Christine Jonson is a rare example, please consider the devastation in the personal lives of young Mormon homosexuals, a number of whom have committed suicide as a diretc consequence of the irrational doctrines of the Church on this issue.

Strongly held irrational beliefs often lead to horrendous irrational acts by those who hold such beliefs, or even live in social networks where such beliefs are prevalent.

Can atheists hold irrational beliefs? Absolutely. What about secular humanists? Sure. And these individuals must be held responsible for the consequences of their actions based on such beliefs.

However, in Islam and Mormonism, for example, we see an inordinate number of such beliefs that are institutionalized and taught as doctrine. Religions that teach these irrational doctrines, and especially those that then warn members of hellish consequences for non-adherence, must stand responsible for the consequences alongside the perpetrator.

[beastie]

I agree that that some issues are more valid than others, I commend you for your input on this issue.

Thank you, Mola.

It almost seems to me that Pahoran is making a claim that not even top-tier apologists would make, which is that their apologia is so incredibly iron-clad that only a dishonest or delusional person would persist in thinking that the criticism was valid, despite the proffered apologia. Of course, I'm influenced in this opinion by the fact that my personal interest is the historicity of the BoM in particular, and that is not the impression I get at all from people like Dr. Clark or Brant Gardner. My impression from them is more that they seek to provide a plausible alternative that will make sense to someone of faith. I don't think either of them imagine that their arguments are iron-clad and should completely silence critics.

Look at the tapir argument, for example. I don't think the proponents of this theory are offering this with the idea that this is an iron-clad explanation, and all criticism should be silenced thereafter. I get more of the impression they're saying, "look, maybe this is the explanation. There is still a way to maintain faith despite the fact that scientists accept there were no horses during the BoM time period".

Another example is the peepstone/buried treasure issue. Apologists like Bushman offer the idea that maybe God was using this to train JS in his future prophetic role. (I have not read Bushman, but have seen numerous people attribute this to him so I hope I'm not attributing this to him in mistake) Is that so iron-clad that only dishonest critics would persist in thinking that Joseph using the same stone to see buried treasure as he later used to translate the BoM is a valid criticism? I don't think so. Pahoran is exaggerating, possibly for effect.

[Jeff K.]

It's in the December 2008 issue under "I Remember Joseph":Of course, Jesse N. Smith was 9 years old when Joseph died. Most of the people quoted in the article were likewise small children during Joseph's life.

Do you really consider the reflections of a nine year old legitimate for lambasting the church in the deification of a man? Do you think that perhaps the appearence of such a quote was a reflection of the persons who knew Joseph Smith rather than an endorsement of his being a deity? My understanding is that the church does not consider Joseph Smith imperfect, nor does it consider Joseph Smith to be "god" or "a god". Which in essence makes the quote nothing more than than, a quote of fond remembrance by someone who may have never felt deception from the prophet.

Can atheists hold irrational beliefs? Absolutely. What about secular humanists? Sure. And these individuals must be held responsible for the consequences of their actions based on such beliefs.However, in Islam and Mormonism, for example, we see an inordinate number of such beliefs that are institutionalized and taught as doctrine. Religions that teach these irrational doctrines, and especially those that then warn members of hellish consequences for non-adherence, must stand responsible for the consequences alongside the perpetrator.

Those darn Mormons, Stalin and Mao that is. Oh wait, they were secularists. And they certainly had secularist policies. I think secuarlists must have an inordinate number of irrational beliefs that are especially destructive to the human species. Given your posts, I am sure you agree.

[John Williams]

Do you really consider the reflections of a nine year old legitimate for lambasting the church in the deification of a man? Do you think that perhaps the appearence of such a quote was a reflection of the persons who knew Joseph Smith rather than an endorsement of his being a deity? My understanding is that the church does not consider Joseph Smith imperfect, nor does it consider Joseph Smith to be "god" or "a god". Which in essence makes the quote nothing more than than, a quote of fond remembrance by someone who may have never felt deception from the prophet.

It's not "lambasting the church" to point out the tendency of some people to overstate Joseph's goodness and perfection. And the Ensign's quoting of Jesse Smith is a really good example of that.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's in the December 2008 issue under "I Remember Joseph":

Of course, Jesse N. Smith was 9 years old when Joseph died. Most of the people quoted in the article were likewise small children during Joseph's life.

Suppose the word used was "godly" instead of "god-like." Would you have the same objection?

[John Williams]

Suppose the word used was "godly" instead of "god-like." Would you have the same objection?

This was given as an example of the tendency of some members (and apparently Ensign editors) to overstate the goodness and perfection of Joseph Smith. You'll notice that in my post the tendency among some critics to demonize him was equally objectionable.

[beastie]

Let's look at Christian Science, and consider a recent case wherein parents, because of an unfounded and illogical belief that prayer alone would heal an ill child, did not seek medical attention and the child died as a result.

I maintain that this death would have not otherwise occurred but for the unfounded and illogical beliefs of Christian Science with regard to the power of prayer and healing. Were it not for the irrational tenets of Chriatian Science, the child would not have died. Yet the courts have been unwilling to come down on Christian Science, even though some in the legal system and state child protective services would like to do so.

Dr. W â??

I agree with your assessment of the situation with Christian Scientists. However, there is a crucial difference between this and the example you offered with the tragically murdered LDS children. The difference is that the Christian Science religion directly teaches its members to not seek medical intervention. It is a direct teaching that results in specific behavior in its believers.

The LDS church does not teach that its members should kill children in order to ensure that those same children reach the CK. The LDS church teaches that murder of innocents is the worst sin of all.

Most faithful Christian Scientists would concur that medical intervention should not be sought. Most faithful Christian Scientists would, hence, avoid medical intervention.

Most LDS would not only not concur that children should be killed for the CK, but would be horrified by such an interpretation of their teaching. In fact, I feel safe saying that the only LDS who would concur with this ill woman would be other mentally ill individuals.

Do you think that the lack of belief in an after-life could justly be condemned if a mentally ill atheist killed his/her children to spare them a life of needless suffering? Could we justly calling the lack of belief in an after-life an irrational belief due to the irrational act by a mentally ill person?

Also, put this into perspective. I suspect part of the origin of this teaching was a reaction to the idea by some faiths (largely abandoned by most now-a-days) that unbaptized infants went to purgatory, or limbo, or even hell, instead of heaven. Now, understand that I think all these beliefs are â??angels dancing on the head of a pinâ??, because I donâ??t believe an afterlife exists in the first place, but given the fact that beliefs have the power to either distress or comfort live human beings on this earth, wouldnâ??t you agree that the LDS teaching was an improvement?

If you feel that Christine Jonson is a rare example, please consider the devastation in the personal lives of young Mormon homosexuals, a number of whom have committed suicide as a diretc consequence of the irrational doctrines of the Church on this issue.

Now I think this would have been a far better example than Christine. I agree that the LDS church teachings about homosexuals have caused unnecessary distress and psychological anguish in people who, try as they might, just canâ??t â??fixâ? themselves, and it is not inconceivable that this could end in suicide.

[John Williams]

Now I think this would have been a far better example than Christine. I agree that the LDS church teachings about homosexuals have caused unnecessary distress and psychological anguish in people who, try and they might, just can't "fix" themselves, and it is not inconceivable that this could end in suicide.

Agreed. The murder of these children is an aberration caused by a deranged person misunderstanding church teachings, and it cannot be laid at the feet of the church.

[Tchild2]

However, in Islam and Mormonism, for example, we see an inordinate number of such beliefs that are institutionalized and taught as doctrine. Religions that teach these irrational doctrines, and especially those that then warn members of hellish consequences for non-adherence, must stand responsible for the consequences alongside the perpetrator.

DrW, you have some good points. However, in the case of children dying before the age of accountability (age 8 or so), I don't think this teaching has lead anyone to ever kill their children to take advantage of this get-to-heaven-free loophole, except in the case of one certain mentally imbalanced woman killing her children (maybe there are more, I don't know). If "normal" people were resorting to such a practice, having been unduly delusioned by their religion, functioning with normal mental capacity in most other aspects of their life, I think the church would be held accountable, and the church deemed a dangerous cult.

Secondly, the church isn't associating violence to another, or self, with this doctrine (like other religious teachings may do). The teaching has been misinterpreted by the individual to mean something that it was never meant to mean. True, indirectly, this teaching may have lead to this woman coming to the conclusion she did, but the church never taught the doctrine approaching any semblence of such a conclusion.

If anything, the church should be harshly punished for floating the cultural nonsense that "Satan controls the waters". Do you know how many people have wasted perfectly good Sunday boating trips, me included, being too afraid of the water? That is a tragedy.

P.S. the Jaradite barge treatise you put together was about the best post (in the top 10 at least) ever offered here.

[ttribe]

It's in the December 2008 issue under "I Remember Joseph":

Of course, Jesse N. Smith was 9 years old when Joseph died. Most of the people quoted in the article were likewise small children during Joseph's life.

C'mon that's a 9-year old trying to come up with the phrase "Christ-like" to describe someone and it came out "God-like". I don't that's a good interpretation.

[John Williams]

C'mon that's a 9-year old trying to come up with the phrase "Christ-like" to describe someone and it came out "God-like". I don't that's a good interpretation.

Actually, that's a 58-year-old man trying to come up with the phrase "God-like." Jesse Smith wrote that in 1892. Anyway, it still stands as a good example of the over-enthusiasm of some people in describing Joseph's character (speaking of the Ensign editors, not necessarily Jesse Smith).

[ttribe]

Agreed. The murder of these children is an aberration caused by a deranged person misunderstanding church teachings, and it cannot be laid at the feet of the church.

Thank you!

[DrW]

<snip> Those darn Mormons, Stalin and Mao that is. Oh wait, they were secularists. And they certainly had secularist policies. I think secuarlists must have an inordinate number of irrational beliefs that are especially destructive to the human species. Given your posts, I am sure you agree.

Stalin was first and foremost a communist (sort of like the Mormon United Order on steroids).

Mao does not help your case. (Pol Pot would have been a better choice.)

Please note that I used the term "secular humanist". None of these individuals could be termed secular humanists.

( Text removed in edit at the request of a mooderator)

[ttribe]

Actually, that's a 58-year-old man trying to come up with the phrase "God-like." Jesse Smith wrote that in 1892. Anyway, it still stands as a good example of the over-enthusiasm of some people in describing Joseph's character (speaking of the Ensign editors, not necessarily Jesse Smith).

Either way...I really don't think the intention was to compare JS to God. Rather, that the observer believed JS exhibited positive, Christlike, attributes in his behaviors.

[Jeff K.]

It's not "lambasting the church" to point out the tendency of some people to overstate Joseph's goodness and perfection. And the Ensign's quoting of Jesse Smith is a really good example of that.

"Tendency of some people" seems to sound more like a generalization of all people when you bring it up. I agree that some people, a small minority of an almost de minimus number do sometimes become overly effusive in their praise of Joseph Smith. I don't buy into it, anymore than I presume Moses the murderer (who opened up a new dispensation) would be considered untouched with controversy.

The Ensigns quotation should be seen as just that, a quotation from some who knew Joseph, not an endorsement of the reflections from a nine year old.

That is my point.