Joseph Smith as an Honest, Honorable, and Sincere Man

[thesometimesaint]

maupayman:

I've never met you personally. All I know about you are just electronic blips on a computer screen. Would it be a fair to assume you don't exist?

[maupayman]

And thus we have a second sample of the same dogmatic assertion.

The only way to achieve 'intellectual honesty' is to accept the materialist philosophy.

I said likely, not the only way

To do anything less- regardless of the evidence- is to be irrational.

I never said this.

Their faith allows no other possibility.

And thus we see that there is no compromise, no willingness to entertain other opinion, or to examine evidence that does not fit neatly into their ledgers.

I have examined evidence of LDS claims and found them wanting.

Our only option- if we wish to be considered 'rational' is abject surrender and dhimmism.

Their creed is no less dogmatic than that found in any OTHER autocratic theology.

I recommend that anyone interested in how to best characterize Jaybear's and Maupay's arguments head over to CBS.COM and watch the classic Twilight Zone episode "The Obsolete Man" with Burgess Meredith.

It's free and no registration is required.

It's also absolutely apropo to this discussion.

whatever... you should be known as the slayer of strawmen.

[selek]

whatever... you should be known as the slayer of strawmen.

Would that be 'The Torcher in the Wry?'

[maupayman]

maupayman:

I've never met you personally. All I know about you are just electronic blips on a computer screen. Would it be a fair to assume you don't exist?

i'm not following, you could easily come meet me if you like...

[maupayman]

Would that be 'The Torcher in the Wry?'

sure, why not

[Jaybear]

I do.

It might be easier "from an intellectual perspective", but that is far from the only perspective one may observe.

I am glad you agree. Selek seems to thing that expressing such a view makes me dogmatic.

But Selek won't answer my question, nor tell me specifically what I said that he disagrees with.

It is far easier from other perspectives to accept the fact of the threat. What is so difficult about that, anyway?

I agree with you, if your perspective includes: (1) you have a testimony of Smith; (2) you don't abhor polygamy.

[Ahab]

Ok, and how did God tell you? This is where you will probably lose me.

The "how" is something you would have to experience, yourself, before you can correctly understand how God does it.

The fact is, God did tell me that what Joseph Smith said is true, which is how I know Joseph was one of God's prophets.

[maupayman]

The "how" is something you would have to experience, yourself, before you can correctly understand how God does it.

The fact is, God did tell me that what Joseph Smith said is true, which is how I know Joseph was one of God's prophets.

as expected, you didn't answer the question

[LeSellers]

Moved to separate Topic.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

maupayman:

God is easy enough to meet. All you have to do is have the right modem.

[Ahab]

One wonders why one should abhor polygyny as your statement implies.

It is historically one of the most successful mating strategies around the world and across thousands of cultures.

This insanity of abhorring polygyny is mystifying and I'd like to hear a cogent, secular (or even a decent, non-LDS religious) defense thereof. So far, I have not.

Lehi

Are you familiar with the concept of how righteous men can't look upon any kind of sin without a sense of abhorrence for it?

Having more than one wife can be righteous, but it can also be a sin, depending on several factors, and all you need to see to see it as something that should be abhorred is to see it as a sin.

[why me]

Are you familiar with the concept of how righteous men can't look upon any kind of sin without a sense of abhorrence for it?

Having more than one wife can be righteous, but it can also be a sin, depending on several factors, and all you need to see to see it as something that should be abhorred is to see it as a sin.

Joseph Smith had stated that he was not righteous (see my signature lines below) which was quite a statement to make to a gathering of church members. I suppose that members like mormon critics today expected perfection from JS. Instead what they got was a rough stone cut from the vermont hills. But then again, the apostles were no different. Many were also rough stones rolling. It seems that the lord does prefer such kind of stones to represent him.

[Deborah]

Many were also rough stones rolling. It seems that the lord does prefer such kind of stones to represent him.

Just look how difficult it was to talk to the Scribes and Pharisees, who supposedly knew everything. A rough stone is teachable and one thing about the prophet Joseph is that he was loyal to God and was willing to be taught.

[sansfoy]

Instead what they got was a rough stone cut from the vermont hills.

I can tell you from personal experience that this is an absolutely falsehood. Any Vermonter knows that stones are not cut. They grow in the garden like enormous, granite potatoes. Stick your shovel in and you'll find one.

[Ahab]

Joseph Smith had stated that he was not righteous (see my signature lines below) which was quite a statement to make to a gathering of church members. I suppose that members like mormon critics today expected perfection from JS. Instead what they got was a rough stone cut from the vermont hills. But then again, the apostles were no different. Many were also rough stones rolling. It seems that the lord does prefer such kind of stones to represent him.

You're misquoting Joseph. Look at your own sig lines, again.

[why me]

I can tell you from personal experience that this is an absolutely falsehood. Any Vermonter knows that stones are not cut. They grow in the garden like enormous, granite potatoes. Stick your shovel in and you'll find one.

I think that it was a example of who he was. To describe himself as a rough stone shows that he was not perfect and he did not consider himself to be so.

[why me]

You're misquoting Joseph. Look at your own sig lines, again.

Not very righteous means that he was not righteous. For example, imagine Thomas S. Monson describing himself as being not very righteous during conference and see the reaction from the audience. It was no different for JS. It was quite a statement to make.

[why me]

Just look how difficult it was to talk to the Scribes and Pharisees, who supposedly knew everything. A rough stone is teachable and one thing about the prophet Joseph is that he was loyal to God and was willing to be taught.

A rought stone is a rough stone which perhaps can be made smoother as it rolls down the hill. And I think that is what he meant. But still, the apostles were also rough stones...especially the fishermen and the tax collector. But most of the apostles were average men cut from the hills of Judea. And there was nothing smooth about that.

[Ahab]

Not very righteous means that he was not righteous. For example, imagine Thomas S. Monson describing himself as being not very righteous during conference and see the reaction from the audience. It was no different for JS. It was quite a statement to make.

If President Monson were to say he's not very righteous, I would know what he meant in the same way I know what Joseph Smith meant, and it wouldn't mean they were not righteous.

It's just hard for a righteous man to come out and say he is righteous, especially in light of how righteous God, our Father, and Jesus Christ are. We all can do better, even when we do what is our very best right now.

[sansfoy]

I can tell you from personal experience that this is an absolutely falsehood. Any Vermonter knows that stones are not cut. They grow in the garden like enormous, granite potatoes. Stick your shovel in and you'll find one.

I think that it was a example of who he was. To describe himself as a rough stone shows that he was not perfect and he did not consider himself to be so.

Sorry, that was a little Vermonter humor, nothing more.

[maupayman]

maupayman:

God is easy enough to meet. All you have to do is have the right modem.

You've met God?

[Deborah]

A rought stone is a rough stone which perhaps can be made smoother as it rolls down the hill.

I agree, and that's the point. Because they were teachable they could be smoothed into the stalwart and faithful men they became.

[lukas_s]

Despite the fact that I've left the Church, I still have a great deal of respect and love for Joseph Smith. He is still a prophet in my mind.

I can definitely understand why people would find him dishonest, dishonorable, or insincere, though. He certainly was those things at points in his life, just like the rest of us. But I can't deny my testimony of him on those grounds.

[Mudcat]

Very insightful. In fact, given Smith's remarkable accomplishments, I am puzzled that any critic would believe that Smith was delusional. I surely don't.

Seems I have heard snippets of thoughts on such matters. Most involve some sort exposure to possibly induced hallucinations via psychedelic substances.

However, I think a critical case could be made for such with the disregard of mushrooms and so forth. Likely it would be a fairly refutable argument. But since I am thinking about, I'll toss out a skeleton of an argument to see if it has any merit.

I think if we examine JS's post pubescent life we could come to the conclusion that he believed he had access to forces outside the normal scope of humanity. Specifically the ability to unveil buried treasures through his utilization of a stone. It is speculative to say whether he thought the power came from the stone or that the stone allowed him to access such a power, but I given his later usage of the stone, as well as other objects, to access other powers. I think the best assumption would be that the he more likely felt the stone was a device giving him access to a power he maintained.

The case would likely start somewhere around there and progress to later episodes.

Think about that for a minute and remove JS from the topic, in hopes of removing prepositional bias. Say the guy down the road believed he could do exactly the same thing with a rock he found. Would you more likely think he was delusional or would you assume that he could do just that?

Certainly culture was different in America in 1800's than it is now. I can't do much to parse that fact, but I don't know that the time line necessitates consideration either.

[ERayR]

Certainly culture was different in America in 1800's than it is now. I can't do much to parse that fact, but I don't know that the time line necessitates consideration either.

Of course it does. One must be evaluated against the common background of their time.