The New Atheist Church Hits The Headlines In The Uk

[Ahab]

How is this sentiment any different than a Scientologist stating, "Just don't run around saying that Xenu doesn't exist, because that will only make you look foolish to those who know that he does."

I don't know who that Xenu person is that you, or they, are talking about. I've never met him. I don't know if he may go by some other name. I don't know anything about him, or her, or whatever it is. I wouldn't go around saying he doesn't exist, though. I have no idea whether he or she or it does or not. Maybe I would know him and refer to him by some other name, like maybe how Allah is another name for the person I know as God, our Father, even though some people are mistaken in some of their ideas about him.

Or for that matter, a member of the Flat Earth Society stating, "Just don't run around saying that the earth is a sphere, because that will only make you look foolish to those who know that it is flat."

The Earth is flat, in some places. Overall it is round though and I know that from having seen the curviture of the Earth. It's still flat, though, in some places.

I think that we are meeting an obstacle in understanding one another because of our differing views of "belief" versus "fact"; you continue to argue that it is a fact that god exists, while I am arguing that I do not believe that god exists. I am certainly open to the possibility that I could be wrong regarding my views of god, but it is definitely hard to have a discussion with someone who cannot fathom that their view could possibly be incorrect, particularly when it comes to such an unprovable tenet as gods existence.

We can have a discussion even though we do not agree on all things. Just don't expect me to no longer know God exists while I know he does. You're not going to make me forget what I know about him and how to confirm that he still does exist.

Essentially, we are left with your argument that it is a fact that god exists, and anyone else who doesn't believe as you do is just plain wrong.

What do you mean, believe as I do? If anyone says God doesn't exist, yes, they are wrong, but they don't necessarily have to know all that I know about him.

Meanwhile, I will continue to argue that I do not believe that god exists, but I am open to the possibility that I do not have the market cornered when it comes to absolute truths, and that I could be wrong, and that my truth is not everyone's truth.

You're on firmer ground by simply saying you don't believe God exists. I thought you were saying God doesn't exist, before, and you don't have any good reason to believe that. And I'm glad you're open to getting to know him, later. All you need now is to hear from him, and it usually helps to talk to him while looking for any way he may choose to respond to you.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Ahab

[mathonihah]

I think that we are meeting an obstacle in understanding one another because of our differing views of "belief" versus "fact"; you continue to argue that it is a fact that god exists, while I am arguing that I do not believe that god exists. I am certainly open to the possibility that I could be wrong regarding my views of god, but it is definitely hard to have a discussion with someone who cannot fathom that their view could possibly be incorrect, particularly when it comes to such an unprovable tenet as gods existence.

Do you think that Joseph Smith would be justified, after experiencing the First Vision, in claiming that he knew that God exists? I am not asking you to believe that it was true. But assuming that it was true, would Joseph Smith be justified in claiming that he knew that God exists, while you may be justified in claiming that you do not believe that God exists?

[Walden]

Do you think that Joseph Smith would be justified, after experiencing the First Vision, in claiming that he knew that God exists? I am not asking you to believe that it was true. But assuming that it was true, would Joseph Smith be justified in claiming that he knew that God exists, while you may be justified in claiming that you do not believe that God exists?

Yes, I think that would be a fair statement. Assuming that god and jesus actually visited Joseph Smith in the grove in the tangible and physical manner that he reported they did (and not in the "spiritual eyes" manner), then yes, Smith would be justified in claiming that god exists.

If god and jesus appear before my eyes in my bedroom tonight, in the same tangible manner that they allegedly appeared to Joseph Smith in the grove, I would claim knowledge of their existence.

[Ahab]

Yes, I think that would be a fair statement. Assuming that god and jesus actually visited Joseph Smith in the grove in the tangible and physical manner that he reported they did (and not in the "spiritual eyes" manner), then yes, Smith would be justified in claiming that god exists.

If god and jesus appear before my eyes in my bedroom tonight, in the same tangible manner that they allegedly appeared to Joseph Smith in the grove, I would claim knowledge of their existence.

Well, yeah, as long as you knew it was them when they came. If 2 people show up and claim they are them, that may not work, though.

The way it usually works for most of us, I think, is when we associate good with God and evil with Satan. That way if anyone shows up who is good you can figure that they are at least associated with God even if they aren't him, personally. And vice versa for the evil people, witih Satan as their exemplar.

It also helps to know yourself, too, so that if you get any thoughts in your mind that weren't already there then you'll know they came from either God or Satan, depending on whether those thoughts are good or evil.

Try it out. It works every time. You just need to already know the difference between good and evil, and when an idea wasn't already yours.

[mathonihah]

Yes, I think that would be a fair statement. Assuming that god and jesus actually visited Joseph Smith in the grove in the tangible and physical manner that he reported they did (and not in the "spiritual eyes" manner), then yes, Smith would be justified in claiming that god exists.

If god and jesus appear before my eyes in my bedroom tonight, in the same tangible manner that they allegedly appeared to Joseph Smith in the grove, I would claim knowledge of their existence.

Therefore your earlier assumption that no one can legitimately claim that they know that God exists is not a valid assumption. It is correct to say that no one can legitimately claim that they know that God does not exist; because that is something that is impossible to know. But it is possible to know that God exists. So when someone claims to know that God exists, that claim cannot be automatically dismissed as false. Now the more witnesses there are to an event, the more credible it becomes. Let us just focus on the Restoration for now. First we have the testimony of Joseph Smith, not only of the First Vision, but also of the angel Moroni, and many other angelic and supernatural manifestations. But he is one person, and his testimony alone is not sufficient. Okay, add to it the testimony of the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who testified not only to have seen the plates, but that it was shown to them by an angelic visitation, and the voice of God testifying from heaven that it is true. And there was three of them, not just one. Joseph Smith should have performed one mighty feat of sorcery and conjuring to deceive three independent witnesses of all of that, who although later became disillusioned with the Church and left it, never denied their testimonies. Don't you think that those witnesses make the case pretty strong? And if you expand your inquiry beyond the Restoration into the past, and consider the testimonies of Old and New Testament prophets and Apostles, the case for the existence of God (by way of testimony of others) becomes pretty strong, don't you think?

[Walden]

Therefore your earlier assumption that no one can legitimately claim that they know that God exists is not a valid assumption. It is correct to say that no one can legitimately claim that they know that God does not exist; because that is something that is impossible to know. But it is possible to know that God exists. So when someone claims to know that God exists, that claim cannot be automatically dismissed as false. Now the more witnesses there are to an event, the more credible it becomes. Let us just focus on the Restoration for now. First we have the testimony of Joseph Smith, not only of the First Vision, but also of the angel Moroni, and many other angelic and supernatural manifestations. But he is one person, and his testimony alone is not sufficient. Okay, add to it the testimony of the three witnesses of the Book of Mormon, who testified not only to have seen the plates, but that it was shown to them by an angelic visitation, and the voice of God testifying from heaven that it is true. And there was three of them, not just one. Joseph Smith should have performed one mighty feat of sorcery and conjuring to deceive three independent witnesses of all of that, who although later became disillusioned with the Church and left it, never denied their testimonies. Don't you think that those witnesses make the case pretty strong? And if you expand your inquiry beyond the Restoration into the past, and consider the testimonies of Old and New Testament prophets and Apostles, the case for the existence of God (by way of testimony of others) becomes pretty strong, don't you think?

You are correct, so let me re-phrase my original assumption: if god and/or jesus have appeared to you in a physical sense, you can claim to know that they exist. Everyone else is just a believer.

Your logic only works if, like you said, if you make your case for the existence of God "(by way of testimony of others)", which is completely unverifiable and very much dependent on all kinds of outside influences. And though your response details a rather matter-of-fact account of the divine visitations reported by Joseph Smith and his early followers, it fails to account for some of the less than matter-of-fact, and somewhat troubling details such as multiple, differing accounts of the First Vision, as well as the Matrin Harris account of seeing the plates with his "spiritual eyes" rather than physical eyes.

By your logic, if I were to base the existence of something on the testimony of others, without actual data outside the personal accounts of the testifier, I would be a believer in all sorts of ghosts, bigfoots, UFO's, etc. Heck, I've even seen footage of such things, though without verification, I still consider bigfoots to be fake.

[mathonihah]

You are correct, so let me re-phrase my original assumption: if god and/or jesus have appeared to you in a physical sense, you can claim to know that they exist. Everyone else is just a believer.

I wouldn’t put it quite that way. It is not necessary to have a physical appearance before one can say that they “know”. I haven’t had a physical appearance, but the cumulative experience of many years I believe puts me in a position to say that I “know”. It is like the “seed” that Alma talks about planting in your heart:

“Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

“Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

“But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

“And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

“Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

“And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

“And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

“O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

“Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

“And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

“But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

“Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

“And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.

“But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.

“And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

“Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.” (Alma 32:28–43)

Your logic only works if, like you said, if you make your case for the existence of God "(by way of testimony of others)", which is completely unverifiable and very much dependent on all kinds of outside influences.

That is where the multiple witnesses adds strength to the testimony. That is always the beginning of faith. Faith always starts with the testimony of others, before developing into a full blown personal knowledge, like the experience of the Brother of Jared. To begin with you always have to trust somebody else's testimony, before you start having one of your own.

And though your response details a rather matter-of-fact account of the divine visitations reported by Joseph Smith and his early followers, it fails to account for some of the less than matter-of-fact, and somewhat troubling details such as multiple, differing accounts of the First Vision, as well as the Matrin Harris account of seeing the plates with his "spiritual eyes" rather than physical eyes.

I think that is an excuse. There are multiple accounts, but they are not differing or contradictory accounts. They all tell the same story in different ways at different times to different audiences. None of your objections are serious impediments to belief in the testimonies concerned when carefully examined.

By your logic, if I were to base the existence of something on the testimony of others, without actual data outside the personal accounts of the testifier, I would be a believer in all sorts of ghosts, bigfoots, UFO's, etc. Heck, I've even seen footage of such things, though without verification, I still consider bigfoots to be fake.

No, I don’t think the nature of the testimonies are the same. Testimonies of Big Foot and the First Vision etc. are not comparable in solemnity or seriousness, or corroborative evidences of others.

[Walden]

I wouldn’t put it quite that way. It is not necessary to have a physical appearance before one can say that they “know”. I haven’t had a physical appearance, but the cumulative experience of many years I believe puts me in a position to say that I “know”. It is like the “seed” that Alma talks about planting in your heart:

“Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

“Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.

“But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.

“And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.

“Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.

“And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.

“And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

“O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

“Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

“And behold, as the tree beginneth to grow, ye will say: Let us nourish it with great care, that it may get root, that it may grow up, and bring forth fruit unto us. And now behold, if ye nourish it with much care it will get root, and grow up, and bring forth fruit.

“But if ye neglect the tree, and take no thought for its nourishment, behold it will not get any root; and when the heat of the sun cometh and scorcheth it, because it hath no root it withers away, and ye pluck it up and cast it out.

“Now, this is not because the seed was not good, neither is it because the fruit thereof would not be desirable; but it is because your ground is barren, and ye will not nourish the tree, therefore ye cannot have the fruit thereof.

“And thus, if ye will not nourish the word, looking forward with an eye of faith to the fruit thereof, ye can never pluck of the fruit of the tree of life.

“But if ye will nourish the word, yea, nourish the tree as it beginneth to grow, by your faith with great diligence, and with patience, looking forward to the fruit thereof, it shall take root; and behold it shall be a tree springing up unto everlasting life.

“And because of your diligence and your faith and your patience with the word in nourishing it, that it may take root in you, behold, by and by ye shall pluck the fruit thereof, which is most precious, which is sweet above all that is sweet, and which is white above all that is white, yea, and pure above all that is pure; and ye shall feast upon this fruit even until ye are filled, that ye hunger not, neither shall ye thirst.

“Then, my brethren, ye shall reap the rewards of your faith, and your diligence, and patience, and long-suffering, waiting for the tree to bring forth fruit unto you.” (Alma 32:28–43)

That is where the multiple witnesses adds strength to the testimony. That is always the beginning of faith. Faith always starts with the testimony of others, before developing into a full blown personal knowledge, like the experience of the Brother of Jared. To begin with you always have to trust somebody else's testimony, before you start having one of your own.

I think that is an excuse. There are multiple accounts, but they are not differing or contradictory accounts. They all tell the same story in different ways at different times to different audiences. None of your objections are serious impediments to belief in the testimonies concerned when carefully examined.

No, I don’t think the nature of the testimonies are the same. Testimonies of Big Foot and the First Vision etc. are not comparable in solemnity or seriousness, or corroborative evidences of others.

In the end, I guess that it boils to our differing opinions on what is means to "know" versus what it means to "believe." For me personally, even in the LDS church, and later outside the LDS church in other Christian denominations, the "the cumulative experience of many years" did not "put me in a position to say that I “know”.....in fact, quite the opposite. Even in applying "Moroni's Promise", which is the essential LDS challenge in verifying the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, I never received any verification or confirmation that the book is true. Again, it goes back to our differing opinions on what it means to "know"....for me personally, to say that I "know" something, it must be verifiable outside the confines of my own mind. The rest is just "belief."

And yes, I do agree with you that "Faith always starts with the testimony of others, before developing into a full blown personal knowledge.....To begin with you always have to trust somebody else's testimony, before you start having one of your own." Of course, having been raised in the LDS church, like most other LDS children I relied on my parent's faith in the truthfulness of the gospel during my younger years. Under the umbrella of my family's LDS faith, I tried in earnest to apply the tools and techniques that I was taught all through my youth to gain my own personal testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel (including prayer, reading the Book of Mormon and applying Moroni's Promise, fasting, service, temple attendance, etc.), but in the end, I never did recieve any confirmation regarding the truthfulness of the LDS church, the Book of Mormon, let alone whether or not god existed at all.

Regarding your argument for the differing acounts of the First Vision, have you actually read the different accounts? To argue that "they are not differing or contradictory" seems to me to point out that maybe you have not read all the accounts, because there most certainly are differences, and not in an interpretive way, but in a very tangible way. I won't get into details regarding the different accounts of the conversation/discussion or directives that took place between Smith and the personages, some of which are speculative and subjective. But in the very tangible sense, there is certainly a "differing and contradictory" chasm between the 1832 version of the vision and the final, canonized version of the vision in 1842. The 1832 version details that only Jesus Christ, and he alone, appeared to Joseph Smith in the grove. In the 1835 version, Smith details being visited by both Christ and God, as well as a host of angels. The canonized version of 1842 goes with the "two personages" account, though with no mention of the host of angels as recounted in the 1835 account.

To argue that the versions are not "differing or contradictory" is to argue that one personage is the same as two personages, and that a host of angels is the same as no angels. Even if one can make a leap that that the accounts differed due to a changing audience, how would the audience influence whether or not Smith saw one personage or two personages, or a host of angels or no angels? I can very well fathom the message of the personages, as recounted by Smith, having changed due to the audience he is speaking with, but something so basic as the number of personages who appeared to him seems to point at least to some contradiction, no?

And though I agree that the solemnity of the First Vision account is not comparable to accounts of Big Foot sightings, I do not see how you think the nature of the accounts are vastly different. Both types of accounts involve first-person, eyewitness reports of a tangible and physical observation experienced by the viewer of the occurence. Both types of accounts are not verifiable by scientific means, and are reliant on one's faith in the person telling the account. Both types of accounts have any number of people who claim that they can corroborate the purported sightings (and at least some of the Big Foot sightings have actual video footage of some strange beast). The only tangible differences, really, is the solemnity which you tie to the First Vision story and your need for such a story with regard to an LDS worldview (and I am sure that you could find any number of Big Foot enthusiasts who treat Big Foot video footage with similar earnestness).

[Ahab]

To begin with you always have to trust somebody else's testimony, before you start having one of your own.

No, you don't have to trust someone else's testimony about anything, but you should at least consider the possibility that whatever they're saying is true if you don't have first hand knowledge to the contrary. Once you start considering the possibility you can then start the research with the idea that maybe you'll find some evidence to backup what someone is saying, and if it's seems like a really good thing, you might even hope that you'll find some evidence to support that testimony.

The idea that we can get to know God and learn from God is a wonderfully amazing concept, I think. All people should want to learn from a God who is supposedly the best kind of person or being in all of existence... the most supreme kind of being in all of existence. Who better to learn from about... anything?

I think that is an excuse. There are multiple accounts, but they are not differing or contradictory accounts. They all tell the same story in different ways at different times to different audiences. None of your objections are serious impediments to belief in the testimonies concerned when carefully examined.

Altogether though they all add up to second-hand witnesses. That's just hearsay. It could be true, but then maybe it's not. The possibility that it is true is still there, though, and if it is true, it is definitely worth learning.

Anybody should be able to see how messed up we are on this planet, as a whole. We need some help here, from somebody other than those of us who are here on this planet right now. Either that or the best people here need to start a rebellion, or something, while not causing any trouble for those of us who are trying to do our best here. Most likely though the people here on this planet aren't just up to the job that needs to be done, though. President Obama doesn't seem to even have a clue about the kind of changes we need on this planet, because the little changes he's suggesting don't do squat to fix the real problems. Anyway, not that I want this to get political, but we do need some serious help on this planet and I seriously don't think anyone here, even when working collectively with others, can fix all the problems we have. We need a God to do what needs to be done, and the sooner he gets here, the better.

No, I don’t think the nature of the testimonies are the same. Testimonies of Big Foot and the First Vision etc. are not comparable in solemnity or seriousness, or corroborative evidences of others.

Debatable. If I were you I wouldn't focus on getting anyone to rely on second-hand witnesses, especially about God, while instead suggesting that we can get to know him, personally. And for evidence of that, you can just say you have done it, if you have. If you have it is evidence that it can be done. Being a first-hand witness is always better than relying on hearsay, if you're one of the first-hand witnesses, and if people aren't they should see if they can be one.

Edited February 7, 2013 by Ahab

[mathonihah]

In the end, I guess that it boils to our differing opinions on what is means to "know" versus what it means to "believe." For me personally, even in the LDS church, and later outside the LDS church in other Christian denominations, the "the cumulative experience of many years" did not "put me in a position to say that I “know”.....in fact, quite the opposite. Even in applying "Moroni's Promise", which is the essential LDS challenge in verifying the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, I never received any verification or confirmation that the book is true. Again, it goes back to our differing opinions on what it means to "know"....for me personally, to say that I "know" something, it must be verifiable outside the confines of my own mind. The rest is just "belief."

Then you are contradicting what you agreed upon earlier. You agreed that, assuming that Joseph Smith's experiences and visions were genuine, he could legitimately claim that he knew that God exists, even though he could not "verify it outside of the confines of his own mind".

And yes, I do agree with you that "Faith always starts with the testimony of others, before developing into a full blown personal knowledge.....To begin with you always have to trust somebody else's testimony, before you start having one of your own." Of course, having been raised in the LDS church, like most other LDS children I relied on my parent's faith in the truthfulness of the gospel during my younger years. Under the umbrella of my family's LDS faith, I tried in earnest to apply the tools and techniques that I was taught all through my youth to gain my own personal testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel (including prayer, reading the Book of Mormon and applying Moroni's Promise, fasting, service, temple attendance, etc.), but in the end, I never did recieve any confirmation regarding the truthfulness of the LDS church, the Book of Mormon, let alone whether or not god existed at all.

All I can say to that is that my own experiences have been different. I don't have an explanation for yours. But then I obtained my fist testimony of the Book of Mormon from the start. Everything else has just added to it, to the point that I can now definitively say that I "know" for sure. If you have never had a confirmation or testimony of any kind to begin with, then your situation is different from mine. Joseph smith in the second lecture of his Lectures on Faith confirms that faith always begins when we accept the testimony of others for what they believe, before progressing to obtain a testimony of our own. It is a long lecture, which you can read here. The following is an extract:

33. From this we can see that the whole human family in the early age of their existence and in all their different branches had this knowledge disseminated among them; so that the existence of God became an object of faith in the early age of the world. And the evidence which these men had of the existence of a God was the testimony of their fathers, in the first instance.

34. The reason we have been thus particular on this part of our subject is that this class may see by what means it was that God became an object of faith among men after the fall, and also may see what it was that stirred up the faith of multitudes to feel after him, to search after a knowledge of his character, perfections, and attributes, until they became extensively acquainted with him. Not only were they to commune with him and behold his glory, but they were also to be partakers of his power and stand in his presence.

35. Let this class mark particularly that the testimony which these men had of the existence of a God was the testimony of man. For previous to the time that any of Adam's posterity had obtained a manifestation of God to themselves, Adam, their common father, had testified unto them of the existence of God and of his eternal power and Godhead.

* * *

55. Let us here observe that after any members of the human family are made acquainted with the important fact that there is a God who has created and does uphold all things, the extent of their knowledge respecting his character and glory will depend upon their diligence and faithfulness in seeking after him, until, like Enoch, the brother of Jared, and Moses, they shall obtain faith in God and power with him to behold him face to face.

56. We have now clearly set forth how it is, and how it was, that God became an object of faith for rational beings, and also, upon what foundation the testimony was based which excited the inquiry and diligent search of the ancient Saints to seek after and obtain a knowledge of the glory of God. We have also seen that it was human testimony, and human testimony only, that excited this inquiry in their minds in the first instance. It was the credence they gave to the testimony of their fathers, it having aroused their minds to inquire after the knowledge of God. That inquiry frequently terminated, indeed always terminated when rightly pursued, in the most glorious discoveries and eternal certainty.

I recommend you to read the rest online, and preferably read the whole book.

Regarding your argument for the differing acounts of the First Vision, have you actually read the different accounts? To argue that "they are not differing or contradictory" seems to me to point out that maybe you have not read all the accounts, because there most certainly are differences, and not in an interpretive way, but in a very tangible way. I won't get into details regarding the different accounts of the conversation/discussion or directives that took place between Smith and the personages, some of which are speculative and subjective. But in the very tangible sense, there is certainly a "differing and contradictory" chasm between the 1832 version of the vision and the final, canonized version of the vision in 1842. The 1832 version details that only Jesus Christ, and he alone, appeared to Joseph Smith in the grove. In the 1835 version, Smith details being visited by both Christ and God, as well as a host of angels. The canonized version of 1842 goes with the "two personages" account, though with no mention of the host of angels as recounted in the 1835 account.

To argue that the versions are not "differing or contradictory" is to argue that one personage is the same as two personages, and that a host of angels is the same as no angels. Even if one can make a leap that that the accounts differed due to a changing audience, how would the audience influence whether or not Smith saw one personage or two personages, or a host of angels or no angels? I can very well fathom the message of the personages, as recounted by Smith, having changed due to the audience he is speaking with, but something so basic as the number of personages who appeared to him seems to point at least to some contradiction, no?

I assure you that I have read the different accounts. Here you will find a harmony of the different accounts, showing the differences (and agreements) among them, and that they do not in reality contradict each other:

http://eldenwatson.net/harmony.htm

And though I agree that the solemnity of the First Vision account is not comparable to accounts of Big Foot sightings, I do not see how you think the nature of the accounts are vastly different. Both types of accounts involve first-person, eyewitness reports of a tangible and physical observation experienced by the viewer of the occurence. Both types of accounts are not verifiable by scientific means, and are reliant on one's faith in the person telling the account. Both types of accounts have any number of people who claim that they can corroborate the purported sightings (and at least some of the Big Foot sightings have actual video footage of some strange beast). The only tangible differences, really, is the solemnity which you tie to the First Vision story and your need for such a story with regard to an LDS worldview (and I am sure that you could find any number of Big Foot enthusiasts who treat Big Foot video footage with similar earnestness).

We have to agree to disagree with that one. I don't think that the nature of the testimonies are the same. Did anyone claim to have met Big Foot and intelligently conversed with him? And if so, has that testimony been corroborated with other witnesses claiming the same? How can claimed sightings of strange beasts compare with that?

[Questing Beast]

Just buzz over a "new" thing. It will pass. There is no soul, no core to this gathering. They'll get more enjoyment out of each other doing something useful instead of expecting to be entertained....

[Walden]

Then you are contradicting what you agreed upon earlier. You agreed that, assuming that Joseph Smith's experiences and visions were genuine, he could legitimately claim that he knew that God exists, even though he could not "verify it outside of the confines of his own mind".

All I can say to that is that my own experiences have been different. I don't have an explanation for yours. But then I obtained my fist testimony of the Book of Mormon from the start. Everything else has just added to it, to the point that I can now definitively say that I "know" for sure. If you have never had a confirmation or testimony of any kind to begin with, then your situation is different from mine. Joseph smith in the second lecture of his Lectures on Faith confirms that faith always begins when we accept the testimony of others for what they believe, before progressing to obtain a testimony of our own. It is a long lecture, which you can read here. The following is an extract:

33. From this we can see that the whole human family in the early age of their existence and in all their different branches had this knowledge disseminated among them; so that the existence of God became an object of faith in the early age of the world. And the evidence which these men had of the existence of a God was the testimony of their fathers, in the first instance.

34. The reason we have been thus particular on this part of our subject is that this class may see by what means it was that God became an object of faith among men after the fall, and also may see what it was that stirred up the faith of multitudes to feel after him, to search after a knowledge of his character, perfections, and attributes, until they became extensively acquainted with him. Not only were they to commune with him and behold his glory, but they were also to be partakers of his power and stand in his presence.

35. Let this class mark particularly that the testimony which these men had of the existence of a God was the testimony of man. For previous to the time that any of Adam's posterity had obtained a manifestation of God to themselves, Adam, their common father, had testified unto them of the existence of God and of his eternal power and Godhead.

* * *

55. Let us here observe that after any members of the human family are made acquainted with the important fact that there is a God who has created and does uphold all things, the extent of their knowledge respecting his character and glory will depend upon their diligence and faithfulness in seeking after him, until, like Enoch, the brother of Jared, and Moses, they shall obtain faith in God and power with him to behold him face to face.

56. We have now clearly set forth how it is, and how it was, that God became an object of faith for rational beings, and also, upon what foundation the testimony was based which excited the inquiry and diligent search of the ancient Saints to seek after and obtain a knowledge of the glory of God. We have also seen that it was human testimony, and human testimony only, that excited this inquiry in their minds in the first instance. It was the credence they gave to the testimony of their fathers, it having aroused their minds to inquire after the knowledge of God. That inquiry frequently terminated, indeed always terminated when rightly pursued, in the most glorious discoveries and eternal certainty.

I recommend you to read the rest online, and preferably read the whole book.

I assure you that I have read the different accounts. Here you will find a harmony of the different accounts, showing the differences (and agreements) among them, and that they do not in reality contradict each other:

http://eldenwatson.net/harmony.htm

We have to agree to disagree with that one. I don't think that the nature of the testimonies are the same. Did anyone claim to have met Big Foot and intelligently conversed with him? And if so, has that testimony been corroborated with other witnesses claiming the same? How can claimed sightings of strange beasts compare with that?

Then you are contradicting what you agreed upon earlier. You agreed that, assuming that Joseph Smith's experiences and visions were genuine, he could legitimately claim that he knew that God exists, even though he could not "verify it outside of the confines of his own mind".......No, I said nothing of "visions"; I said that if Joseph actually saw God and Jesus in a tangible and physical form, and not with his "spiritual eyes" or in a visionary sense, but rather in a very real and physical sense, then he would be right to claim that he "knows" that they exist. All the rest are just believers. I have some reservations about claiming that "visions" are "true" as they are subject to all kinds of speculation and outside influence.

I assure you that I have read the different accounts. Here you will find a harmony of the different accounts, showing the differences (and agreements) among them, and that they do not in reality contradict each other...of course I would find harmony among the accounts on an LDS apologists website. I wouldn't expect an LDS apologist to be advertising disharmony. I could just as easily link an anti-LDS website detailing the disharmony of the accounts, but I think that would do little to affect your perspective.

We have to agree to disagree with that one. I don't think that the nature of the testimonies are the same. Did anyone claim to have met Big Foot and intelligently conversed with him? And if so, has that testimony been corroborated with other witnesses claiming the same? How can claimed sightings of strange beasts compare with that? I'm not sure if anyone has claimed to intelligently converse with BigFoot, as I don't follow the BigFoot "culture" or give much credence to the existence of such a thing. But I have surely heard many people corroborating BigFoot sightings (all you have to do is watch an episode of a TV show like "Finding BigFoot" and you will see multiple townspeople in communities throughout the US corroborating one another's stories of BigFoot sightings), some of which are even corroborated by video and/or audio recordings of sightings of a BigFoot-looking creature. In the end, both the original Book of Mormon/angel/voice of God witnesses corroborating Joseph Smith's story and the multiple accounts of BigFoot sightings are all just "claimed sightings of strange beasts," though at least the BigFoot sightings are sometimes corroborated by video evidence.

[thesometimesaint]

I suppose this is a good thing for atheists to gather together in celebration of life. I would mostly be disappointed if it turned into a bash-on-religion-fest.

For some reason it seems an Atheistic church is rather oxymoronic.

[cinepro]

Anything that is good is somehow, somewhat, associated with God, so if they're celebrating anything good in their lives they're actually worshipping God, even if they don't realize it.

I hope no one ever invents a religion that claims that their god created Mormonism, because then the LDS Church's very existence would prove that other church is true.

Their prophet also foretold that LDS would argue that it isn't true.

Edited February 8, 2013 by cinepro

[Ahab]

I hope no one ever invents a religion that claims that their god created Mormonism, because then the LDS Church's very existence would prove that other church is true.

You've got some really bad reasoning there. The fact that something exists doesn't prove that something that was invented created it. Run that through the reality checker a few more times.

Their prophet also foretold that LDS would argue that it isn't true.

It isn't, but I'm not going to argue about it.

[mathonihah]

Then you are contradicting what you agreed upon earlier. You agreed that, assuming that Joseph Smith's experiences and visions were genuine, he could legitimately claim that he knew that God exists, even though he could not "verify it outside of the confines of his own mind".......No, I said nothing of "visions"; I said that if Joseph actually saw God and Jesus in a tangible and physical form, and not with his "spiritual eyes" or in a visionary sense, but rather in a very real and physical sense, then he would be right to claim that he "knows" that they exist. All the rest are just believers. I have some reservations about claiming that "visions" are "true" as they are subject to all kinds of speculation and outside influence.

I assure you that I have read the different accounts. Here you will find a harmony of the different accounts, showing the differences (and agreements) among them, and that they do not in reality contradict each other...of course I would find harmony among the accounts on an LDS apologists website. I wouldn't expect an LDS apologist to be advertising disharmony. I could just as easily link an anti-LDS website detailing the disharmony of the accounts, but I think that would do little to affect your perspective.

We have to agree to disagree with that one. I don't think that the nature of the testimonies are the same. Did anyone claim to have met Big Foot and intelligently conversed with him? And if so, has that testimony been corroborated with other witnesses claiming the same? How can claimed sightings of strange beasts compare with that? I'm not sure if anyone has claimed to intelligently converse with BigFoot, as I don't follow the BigFoot "culture" or give much credence to the existence of such a thing. But I have surely heard many people corroborating BigFoot sightings (all you have to do is watch an episode of a TV show like "Finding BigFoot" and you will see multiple townspeople in communities throughout the US corroborating one another's stories of BigFoot sightings), some of which are even corroborated by video and/or audio recordings of sightings of a BigFoot-looking creature. In the end, both the original Book of Mormon/angel/voice of God witnesses corroborating Joseph Smith's story and the multiple accounts of BigFoot sightings are all just "claimed sightings of strange beasts," though at least the BigFoot sightings are sometimes corroborated by video evidence.

I conclude my remarks by quoting one more passage from the Lecture on Faith. It is paragraph 7 of lecture 6, signifying the important role that sacrifice plays in the plan of salvation:

7. Let us here observe that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation. For from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things. It is through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life. And it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has for the truth’s sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice because he seeks to do His Will, he does know, most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice and offering, and that he has not sought nor will he seek His face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life.

One of the prerequisites of obtaining that faith or testimony is offering acceptable sacrifices unto God. I think one of the reasons why some people struggle in obtaining a testimony is in their unwillingness or inability to offer that sacrifice at a given moment of time. They need time to acquire greater spiritual maturity to be able to offer it, without which faith or testimony cannot be obtained. That can be a painful process, and God has his own ways of bringing those who are unable or unwilling to offer that sacrifice to the point of being able to do so.