New First Vision Video

[Calm]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

Because that's a response or argument that apologists use when anyone has issues with the ages of many of Joseph's wives (as one of many disturbing details regarding how polygamy was practiced). They claim it was normal or common for 14 year old girls to marry back then (just as you attempted to do above).  

If someone uses the word "common" on the FairMormon page in regards to the younger teens, I will be shocked.  It was definitely never discussed that way among us.  "Norm" is referring to the statistical norm.  Please don't assume it is meant to be equivalent to "common".

Saying that 13% of teenaged women married men more than ten years older than they were is not equivalent to saying marriages between 14 and 15 year old women and 36/37? year old men was common.  Imo, probably such a monogamous couple would have raised some eyebrows.  They would not have been ostracized as social pariahs as a polygamist would have in a nonLDS community.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Calm

[JulieM]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you ignoring the point I made that polygamy was way outside the norm or focusing solely on the side of the age differences?  If the latter, I am comfortable relying on the statistics to show whether it was outside the norm or not. 

I'd already stated earlier that the age difference is only one aspect.  I find many other details disturbing too.  I haven't focused solely on the age difference.  

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Benjamin Seeker said:

There are people who spiral into a faith crisis primarily or soley due to historical issues. I am one of them. Here is a collection of stories of individuals' faith crisis. Some of them come in response to deeply studying Mormon history. These are outstanding Mormons with firm testimonies and fruits of faith prior to their faith crisis.

http://www.mormondiscussionpodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/FaithCrisisStoriesMD.pdf

Yes, in a minority of cases there may indeed be a carefully thought-out rationale for leaving.  I even know of such instances.  However, most of those leaving engage in after-the-fact justifications, and this does not apply only to ex-Mormons, but is an across-the-board phenomenon.  People even come to believe their inner-story and it gains credibility with each retelling.   It's human nature, with some bitterness on both sides of the divide.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

I have never claimed to be a shining example, especially since I openly drink tea, which many Mormons do not like. 😀

High standards are unrelated to tea-drinking, but have to do with honesty and integrity in personal discourse.  High standards in discussion on this board would include actually engaging in sincere debate in a substantive manner.  You have made no effort to do any of that.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Trust me...I know...I have kids of my own...

I don't hang out or interact with just an "anti-Mormon" crowd.  I have very active friends/family members, along with less active and even those that left the church.  Many of my friends are not even LDS and are either atheists or members of another church.  

Good, that shows some degree of balance.  Too bad you don't see fit to bring such balance to your discussions on this board.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I'd already stated earlier that the age difference is only one aspect.  I find many other details disturbing too.  I haven't focused solely on the age difference.  

Your reaction to my comments then seem not to be to my actual comments, but what you see as the typical argument.  Perhaps it would be best if you don't quote me in discussing your opinion about the most typical argument in support of Joseph's marriages (which btw I neither support nor disavow as I don't believe we know enough about what was going on, there was a lot of inappropriate behaviour, especially by Joseph, but I can't ignore the testimony of the women involved and there were a lot of positive comments as well as negative).

Edited March 7, 2017 by Calm

[Danzo]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

Because that's a response or argument that apologists use when anyone has issues with the ages of many of Joseph's wives (as one of many disturbing details regarding how polygamy was practiced). They claim it was normal or common for 14 year old girls to marry back then (just as you attempted to do above).  

It was common, and not that long ago.

I have relatives that were married at that age. They are still married! They weren't LDS when they were married. (They are now).

Calling me an apologist is a complement that I probably don't deserve.

I am not a scholar by anyone's standard, but I have read of many historical accounts of marriages at that age and it doesn't seem to have been a big deal.

Someone quoting me an average age of marriage to show evidence that something was or was not common just says that they must not have ever taken a statistics course

 

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Danzo said:

It was common, and not that long ago.

I have relatives that were married at that age. They are still married! They weren't LDS when they were married. (They are now).

Calling me an apologist is a complement that I probably don't deserve.

I am not a scholar by anyone's standard, but I have read of many historical accounts of marriages at that age and it doesn't seem to have been a big deal.

Someone quoting me an average age of marriage to show evidence that something was or was not common just says that they must not have ever taken a statistics course

 

It wasn't common (meaning for me more than 5%, perhaps your percentage is lower and we are close in our conclusions) in Joseph's community.  The community wasn't large enough to have more than a handful of examples of marriage at that age, iirc, though also small enough that it didn't make them outliers.  (To be clear to those who don't understand my point---I am not including Danzo in my group, just being generic--- having 3 in a group of 100 is different than having 3 in 10,000...I can't remember the exact number, hopefully it was included in the page, will check tomorrow). It was even less common for those teens to be marrying men that much older than they were, but as quoted above there were still 13% of teens marrying men more than ten years older.  Don't know the percentage of 14 year olds, but I believe it was too small of a group to play around much statistics though they fell within the range of standard deviation (hope I am saying that right, really tired tonight and words are not coming easily..try to remember to doublecheck that tomorrow)

Edited March 7, 2017 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I'd say you have more to learn about the process. Moroni's promise does in fact challenge people to seek a likely emotional response. This type of epistemology is prevalent in Mormonism.

As I said previously in this thread,  an emotional trauma enabled me to think about the truth claims more objectively. Someone once said, "You cannot disbelieve something rationally if you believed emotionally." And there can be an enormous amount of emotional pressure to maintain membership in the Church.

I can honestly say that as an LDS my reflex was to always defend the Church. It took extra effort to deny my bias and endeavor to think critically. And when I did, I discovered where the weaknesses were in my Church testimony (not to be confused with my testimony of Jesus Christ.) For instance,  I came to know that if Joseph Smith were a prophet, than God must allow people who have frequently lied about important things to represent Him in this last dispensation.

Objectively, I knew that the claims of the Restoration hinge on that completely.

(And so my trauma showed me that a person who frequently lies about important things cannot be a prophet. It was both an emotional and intellectual lesson...)

Moroni 10:4-5 is prevalent within Mormon theology, and it is frequently attacked by mainstream Protestants as being too closely tied to emotional "feelings" -- for the same reasons that such Protestants typically denounce their Pentecostal brothers, and definitely cannot stand the long history of Roman Catholic visions.

However, it is arguable that all Christian testimony is based on that same emotional "feeling," since there is no actual evidence that any miraculous biblical event ever took place.  There is no epistemic base in reality from which one could conclude that the Bible is true, or that Jesus actually was the literal Son of God.  Thus, if the Holy Spirit is all a lie, and if the biblical claims are all wild folklore, what basis in epistemology do we have for believing anything?

Alma 32:26-43 provides a slightly different approach, in which the experimental method can gradually be applied -- and conditioned by a feedback mechanism.  Most Mormons have no idea that their epistemology is so sophisticated and variegated, nor that their religion is basically and fundamentally humanistic and naturalistic (non-miraculous).  Nor does it really matter.  For, if it is not of God it will fail, if it is of God, well:  Que sera, sera.

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, Danzo said:

When you use average, I think you should include median and standard deviation, otherwise the average is useless to determine what was Normal.  Also, you should account for regional variations. 

Just celebrated the 50th anniversary of my mother and father in law. My mother in law was married at age 14, which was quite common in the area where they are from.

Fifty years ago was not the time period we're talking about.

But,  statistically, you make a valid point.

[Calm]

38 minutes ago, Danzo said:

It was common, and not that long ago.

I have relatives that were married at that age. They are still married! They weren't LDS when they were married. (They are now).

Calling me an apologist is a complement that I probably don't deserve.

I am not a scholar by anyone's standard, but I have read of many historical accounts of marriages at that age and it doesn't seem to have been a big deal.

Someone quoting me an average age of marriage to show evidence that something was or was not common just says that they must not have ever taken a statistics course

 

Statistics was not typically a sought after course even for math nerds like myself.  After taking it, I was planning on going into research as it was rather fun (except for finding subjects and the oral presentation).  A bad reaction to pregnancy got in the way, thankfully my husband minored in it and still uses it extensively in his work so I can doublecheck my eon's old memory for accuracy of conclusions.  It is really quite enjoyable to fool around with.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Moroni 10:4-5 is prevalent within Mormon theology, and it is frequently attacked by mainstream Protestants as being too closely tied to emotional "feelings" -- for the same reasons that such Protestants typically denounce their Pentecostal brothers, and definitely cannot stand the long history of Roman Catholic visions.

However, it is arguable that all Christian testimony is based on that same emotional "feeling," since there is no actual evidence that any miraculous biblical event ever took place.  There is no epistemic base in reality from which one could conclude that the Bible is true, or that Jesus actually was the literal Son of God.  Thus, if the Holy Spirit is all a lie, and if the biblical claims are all wild folklore, what basis in epistemology do we have for believing anything?

Alma 32:26-43 provides a slightly different approach, in which the experimental method can gradually be applied -- and conditioned by a feedback mechanism.  Most Mormons have no idea that their epistemology is so sophisticated and variegated, nor that their religion is basically and fundamentally humanistic and naturalistic (non-miraculous).  Nor does it really matter.  For, if it is not of God it will fail, if it is of God, well:  Que sera, sera.

Fortunately for me I rely heavily on the Alma 32 approach, and I also have long noted that a blessing is dependent upon obedience to the law on which it is predicated...therefore that experimental process is applicable in developing an increasingly precise understanding of a given principle.

I agree that there is no way to prove the divinity of Jesus. And there is no way to objectively prove Joseph Smith was a prophet. However, if we have objective standards for a prophet or Joseph as prophet in particular, hypothetically certain information could contradict such a claim of being prophet.

In other words, we cannot prove Smith was a prophet even if he was, but we might be able to prove he was not a prophet if he wasn't.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

Where would those objective standards come from?  How could you ensure they were objective and measured objectively given human behaviour and thought tends to complexity Nd ambiguity.

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

So you're still wanting this practice to conform to 19th and 20th century mores, when the practice originally dates to 2 and 3000 years in the past.  And you want consistency in these days when rules were new and still being developed.  I don't doubt that if plural marriage were to be re-instituted that the rules will have been very thoroughly thought out and vetted with the Lord by the time we get the word.  And even if the rules are well thought-out, no doubt problems will arise because of human fallibility. 

We still have "rule turbulence", and in many things.  One used to be able to married for Time Only in the temple.  Now one can't be.  A deceased female can now be sealed to more than one deceased man.  Deacons used to be adults.  The WoW used to be voluntary.  We used to pay tithes in kind. 

I'm satisfied that the Church is true and is being administered as well as it can be administered by fallible mortal beings under the guidance of the Lord.  I don't insist upon perfection, either in historical or in current events.  If you do, then that's your lookout. 

Please don't put words in my mouth. 

What I expect, to put it bluntly and simplistically, is for the prophet to not be a jerk. I want him not be a man of honor and integrity. I want his relationship with his wife to be in harmony with the gospel. I want him to repent quickly and to not hide the truth or manufacture stories for his own benefit.

I do not believe God would subjugate Joseph and Emma's marriage to some "higher law" of polygamy. I believe that if indeed God commands such a departure from their original vows, that God would have given Joseph and Emma ample chance to mutually agree to and prepare for such a change, to plan out the rules carefully and completely. 

I do not see any reason for there to be "rule turbulence" in such a matter in Joseph's day. I am not satisfied that there was any legitimate reason to rush into such a change. Material and spiritual needs of his followers could have been met outside marital relationships.

More and more, it looks to me like he was an extremely intelligent, dynamic, and talented man born in a time when spiritualistic vitality was a commodity. So he used it.

There are a whole lot of things Joseph Smith said which I like, but I have learned that a man can be like that while also being deliberately deceitful an unrepentant. And him saying brilliant things sometimes does not make all his sayings correct. In my opinion, that is not how "judging by their fruits" works.

If you are willing to embrace the good while firmly setting aside the bad or what you perceive as questionable, I can appreciate that.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Meadowchik]

27 minutes ago, Calm said:

Where would those objective standards come from?  How could you ensure they were objective and measured objectively given human behaviour and thought tends to complexity Nd ambiguity.

The historocity of the First Vision accounts are examples of objective standards. The legitimacy of the Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price are objective standards.  The veracity of other founding events provides more standards to measure.

We now know the "translation" process of the Book of Mormon more closely resembled a dictation process, one whose perpetuation was contingent on correct inscription, one line at a time. That provides us with quite a specific objective standard. 

Edited March 7, 2017 by Meadowchik

[Calm]

"What I expect, to put it bluntly and simplistically, is for the prophet to not be a jerk."

Guess I had the advantage that I expected pretty much everyone to be a jerk in some way.  Don't know why I thought that way as people around me were nice.  Never looked for a role model or felt a sense of admiration for an authority figure until I got to see him as a person with depth.

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The historocity of the First Vision accounts are examples of objective standards. The legitimacy of the Book of Mormon, D&C, and Pearl of Great Price are objective standards.  The veracity of other founding events provides more standards to measure.

And how would you go about objectively measuring them?

 

4 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

 

We now know the "translation" process of the Book of Mormon more closely resembled a dictation process, one whose perpetuation was contingent on correct inscription, one line at a time. That provides us with quite a specific objective standard. 

How so?

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What I expect, to put it bluntly and simplistically, is for the prophet to not be a jerk. I want him not [sic, right?] be a man of honor and integrity. I want his relationship with his wife to be in harmony with the gospel. I want him to repent quickly and to not hide the truth or manufacture stories for his own benefit.

I do not believe God would subjugate Joseph and Emma's marriage to some "higher law" of polygamy. I believe that if indeed God commands such a departure from their original vows, that God would have given Joseph and Emma ample chance to mutually agree to and prepare for such a change, to plan out the rules carefully and completely. 

I do not see any reason for there to be "rule turbulence" in such a matter in Joseph's day. I am not satisfied that there was any legitimate reason to rush into such a change. Material and spiritual needs of his followers could have been met outside marital relationships.

Do you see these as objectives desires and expectations?

[Meadowchik]

51 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you see these as objectives desires and expectations?

It depends on the definition of "jerk" and "harmony with the gospel," and here are the more objective expectations from my post:

- I want him to repent quickly and to not hide the truth or manufacture stories for his own benefit.

-Material and spiritual needs of his followers could have been met outside marital relationships.

 

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And how would you go about objectively measuring them?

 

How so?

For the Book of Mormon, according to historical record, one might say Joseph acted as the vocal segment in the conduit through which the Book of Mormon flowed out of a peepstone, in an almost exclusively spiritual process, rather than an intellectual translation process inspired by God.

In the case of the Book of Abraham, according to established egyptography, at most one might say that Joseph experienced the fascmile as a spiritual jumping-off point for the revelation of a temporally lost book.

In neither case can one objectively say Joseph "translated" in the conventional sense of the word, even if we allow for spiritual help in the intellectual process of translation.

We are left to say that at most he revealed those scriptures directly through the power of God. But if we objectively test the claim of translation, the claim fails.

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It depends on the definition of "jerk" and "harmony with the gospel," and here are the more objective expectations from my post:

- I want him to repent quickly and to not hide the truth or manufacture stories for his own benefit.

-Material and spiritual needs of his followers could have been met outside marital relationships.

 

How are these "objective"?  I am not sure you and I are using the word the same way.

In what way can you objectively measure these behaviors?  In what way can you first test that a true prophet would do these things this way and not another?  Or set up a list of behaviors that must be present in a true prophet and others that must be absent?  And would these be for a percentage of time allowed, but over that is unacceptable...since I assume you don't believe in infallibility so even true prophets will err and sin.

How do you see creating an objective measure for being in harmony with the Gospel?  Is this like a temple recommend interview or the checklists someone comes up with?

(serious questions, I am trying to understand your perspective.)

Edited March 7, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

For the Book of Mormon, according to historical record, one might say Joseph acted as the vocal segment in the conduit through which the Book of Mormon flowed out of a peepstone, in an almost exclusively spiritual process, rather than an intellectual translation process inspired by God.

In the case of the Book of Abraham, according to established egyptography, at most one might say that Joseph experienced the fascmile as a spiritual jumping-off point for the revelation of a temporally lost book.

In neither case can one objectively say Joseph "translated" in the conventional sense of the word, even if we allow for spiritual help in the intellectual process of translation.

We are left to say that at most he revealed those scriptures directly through the power of God. But if we objectively test the claim of translation, the claim fails.

"We are left to say that at most he revealed those scriptures directly through the power of God. But if we objectively test the claim of translation, the claim fails"

We don't have the plates to compare to, so you are speaking of the Book of Abraham, right?

Are you 100% certain the papyri we have were the only ones that were used and that what he translated had to be on them even though the only thing we can judge with much assurance (in my view of course) is that if he did transmit (a more precise term, imo, and one that fits the 1820 definition of the word "translate" according to Webster's), he did not transmit from the papyri (the papyri did not place words in his head), but from someone else, whether God or one appointed by God?

Even if the translation of the plates proceeded a certain way, is it actually objective to insist the BoA had to proceed the same way?  The Gospel allows for change through learning line upon line.  What inherent requirement of objectivity is there for the transmission of both texts to be identical?  

[Meadowchik]

Just now, Calm said:

How are these "objective"?  I am not sure you and I are using the word the same way.

In what way can you objectively measure these behaviors?  In what way can you test that a true prophet would do these things this way and not another?

How do you see creating an objective measure for being in harmony with the Gospel?  Is this like a temple recommend interview or the checklists someone comes up with?

(serious question, I am trying to understand your perspective.

I'm talking about what would disqualify a person from being a prophet.  You might say my standard is subjectively chosen but I think it might be objectively measured.

If, for example, Joseph Smith represented fictional stories or other's stories as truths and objects of revelation, then he's not a prophet.

If Joseph Smith committed adultery, but denied it and never repented of it, he was not a prophet.

Do you think either of these are unfair? Is there a line, could there be a line which, if crossed, would disqualify him?

[Calm]

What does it matter that they can be objectively measured if their importance or lack of it is subjectively chosen?  Beyond a personal and thus subjective experience?

An example just to clarify my point...if I chose as one of my subjective measures of a true prophet was an avid student, which I chose the objective measure of number of books in his possession and classes he took from experts, this might be relatively easy to measure in an objective manner if we have a record of his library as well as a history of how he studied.  But if no one else agrees it is a useful measure to demonstrate someone is a true prophet, it has no objective value for the question of true prophethood no matter how accurate I can provide an objective measure.

I don't want to talk about specifics before understanding methodology.

4 am here.  Takes 2 hours usually for me to fall asleep, hopefully less tonight, but must sign off. Hope we can continue this tomorrow.

Edited March 7, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

Before I forget because my mind is a sieve, but feel free to ignore it until we get to specifics and I can repost it...I will be able to give you my answers just fine, but most likely will forget questions thinking about it caused.

If a man sins when he is 30 and does not repent in the next ten years, does this mean he will never repent in your view?

If a man has been living what appears to be an honorable and charitable life with great spiritual insight until the age of 50 (any number you want), commits a heinous sin at that age, does that imply his previous good actions were pretense and spiritually meaningless or do they still have spiritual meaning after his sin?  For example David, what did the seduction of Bathsheba and murder of Uriah mean for all the times he had appeared to be inspired to do God's will?

Edited March 7, 2017 by Calm