Bill Reel Vs. Jim Bennett

[TOmNossor]

40 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Sealings were the same as marriages.  Please don't tell me you've bought into the whole "Joseph never lived polygamy" stuff (?).  

What evidence do you have that Joseph did not consider any of the women he was sealed to, to be one of his plural wives?

I don't know about Bede, but I do not buy into the whole "'Joseph never lived polygamy' stuff."  But, if you believe that Joseph had sexual relations with ALL of those to whom he was sealed it is you who are on a historical limb without any warrant.

It is clear that Joseph did not have sexual relations with ALL of those to whom he was sealed.

I like to remind those scandalized by polygamy of a few things.

1.  Don Bradley has probably done more research on LDS polygamy than anyone.  He began his research as a non-believer and ended his research as a believer (I am not suggesting that researching polygamy leads to conversion only that researching polygamy does not preclude conversion or return in this case).

2.  Of the two positions, "Joseph never had sex with anyone but Emma," and "Joseph Smith was a sexual predator pursuing sexual relationships with as many and varied partners as he could reasonably get away with;" the MOST likely based on the data is that Joseph never had sex with anyone but Emma.  I think that less likely than that some of the polygamous marriages involved consummation and perhaps rare sexual relations beyond this.  No matter how much one despises Joseph Smith or polygamy or both, nobody can know what God did or didn't communicate with him.  What we can know is that a very small number of folks and not Joseph's closest acquaintances considered his activities regarding polygamy libido driven (maybe).  The vast majority of the conservative Christian folks who knew Joseph considered Joseph Smith's activities regarding polygamy to be a product of his reception of divine communications to practice polygamy.  This is because while we cannot know if any specific sexual acts occurred, we can be reasonably certain, Joseph was not "sleeping around."  And I think a powerful question becomes, if Joseph did not teach polygamy so he could sleep around, why did he teach it?   I submit it was because he received it from God.

3. I do not suggest that the living of polygamy was a sinless endeavor, only that the historical record does not support the idea that it was a libido driven endeavor.  At the very least, it appears that Joseph Smith was not honest with Emma ALL of the time (though Emma's presentation evidences that she was not always relaying truth in her telling of what happened either).  One can question the consequences of complete honesty and the situation Joseph was placed in, but I think acknowledging sinful deception is a more solid position that claiming there was nothing of the sort.

Anyway, I am thankful to not live Polygamy.  I would be a zero woman man in all likelihood.  I am not a fan for this reason and others.  But when I try to remove my prejudice, my presentism, and other biases; I just cannot crow from the rooftop how evil Joseph must have been.  I do not think there is evidence for that.  Oh, and the BOM is ... extraordinary and ....

Charity, TOm

[TOmNossor]

On 3/15/2019 at 8:10 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other, so I'll try to be clear.

Epistemic obligation = when is a person obliged to believe something

Believe something until it is disproven = NOT my epistemic obligation

Do not believe something until it is proven = my epistemic obligation

This conversation begin because you said people can't explain the Book of Mormon away so it must be true. My point was that I don't have to explain it away. I don't have to disprove it. That's not my epistemic obligation. I have my personal experiences of Catholicism. Catholicism has been proven to me. I do not have to go and disprove any other religion. I don't have to disprove the Book of Mormon in order to not believe in Mormonism.

That was my point.

I am a fan of what you wrote here!

I am a fan of Catholicism in general.

However, it is the inability to explain the BOM from a Catholic perspective that means I am today and probably will forever be a LDS.  Before I ask what subjective experiences I have had (testimony), I ask what does reason indicate.  For me it is clear that I cannot explain the BOM without involving the supernatural.  There is no atheistic explanation that exists that satisfies the objective data.

I do not know what brings you here (I know you have been here a long time and are more active than I am).  But, if you do not feel the need to investigate the CoJCoLDS because you KNOW the Catholic Eucharist is transubstantiated, I do not think a proper understanding of LDS teachings means I should upbraid you for your non-investigation or even your unwillingness to pray to know if the BOM is true.  I commend you for your faith and if God ever told me that He was not part of the CoJCoLDS, I expect I would be at confession in less than 24 hours.

I am confident that sincere seekers find what God needs them to find.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

On 3/16/2019 at 12:40 AM, Bede said:

Stephen Hawking ...Albert Einstein.

And to that I say this: There are two slam dunks for Mormonism that have yet to be explained away by any critic, including yourself.

1) The testimonies of the witnesses

2) The coming forth of the Book of Mormon

If it turns out, hypothetically, that nothing else is true about the claims of the church, these two powerful elements (really one--the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon) would still make Mormonism true. 

I take your anecdotal 15% and raise you the Book of Mormon.

(small print quoted just for fun, largely unrelated to my post).

Hello Bede,

I hope Bill Reel, @DBMormon, will respond, but I don't see what I have missed in the following narrative.

Bill Reel once viewed his podcast as a means to "strengthen the feeble knees."  He was informed about MANY issues with the CoJCoLDS.  If he was unaware of the contents of all in the CES letter, I would be surprised.  And yet he believed.

He said in his podcast, “No, I agree with, I agree with you.  If the BOM is not historical then what Joseph pulled of was a level of genius that puts him in the maybe the top 3 or 4 most incredible acts of intelligence and cohesiveness that I have every seen.”

This seems to align well with his position from just a few years ago.  A position that asserted the CoJCoLDS was God's church and the issues needed to be explored so we can "strengthen the feeble knees."

Only now as a non-believer who seeks to expose believers progressively to the problems (progressively because he doesn't want them to tune out and remain blissfully LDS) he still admits the above.

When I called that out and said it was what you said above (a much more powerful position than the piles of problems he dwells upon), he responds by explaining the key part of the above is:

Quote

No, I agree with, I agree with you.  If the BOM is not historical then what Joseph pulled of was a level of genius that puts him in the maybe the top 3 or 4 most incredible acts of intelligence and cohesiveness that I have every seen.”

Keep in mind that context means everything

3 or 4 most incredible acts of intelligence and cohesiveness that I have every seen.

I am not informed or aware of the details of every act of genius in the world.  I am instead pointing to the idea that in my limited exposure to the world and its history, this level of genius would be at the top of my awareness of that world history.  

Now he would have us believe, he said this because he has not been exposed to the great works of genius present in this world and thus the BOM is only great relative to what he has seen.  This is a remarkable position.  It relies upon his profession of ignorance and naivete that I consider extraordinary.  I just don't get it.  

I submit that if he makes the above claim because he is so unexposed to genius in the world, we can confidently conclude that he is not much of a witness against the CoJCoLDS either.

I further submit that he made the claim for a few reasons and being ignorant and naive are not among them. 

1. He truly recognizes it to be true (and being unfamiliar with genius has nothing to do with recognition).

2. He has emotionally rejected the CoJCoLDS because of the harm it does in his opinion to LGBT folks and he expects this to carry the day regardless of how powerful the existence of the BOM is.

3. He wanted to lure in those believers by conceding things that in his mind do not contain the weight (again EMOTIONAL weight) other things contain.

4. He didn't expect cold heartless people (like me) or wonderful compassionate people like you and Jim Bennett, to find in his admission (and in the strength of the BOM) a reason to weather the storm that is the BOA or LGBT issues or ...

I don't know how he walks it back.  I think it was his pre-disbelief view and is no weaker because the church put out a policy in 2015 with which he compassionately (and passionately/emotionally) disagrees.  I think it is unlikely that he has encounter so little of the genius in the world that we should view this like a statement from an 8 year old or something.  

Before I had a testimony, I believed that "Joseph couldn't do it and the devil wouldn't do it."  I still do.  My conviction that Joseph couldn't do it has only grown stronger over the last almost 20 years.

Charity, TOm

 

Edited March 19, 2019 by TOmNossor

[PacMan]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you capable of having a conversation without antagonizing other board participants? Your rudeness is wearisome.

Wait...let me get this right.  MiserereNobis butts into a conversation and trolls questions that I did not ask her.  Then she tries to antagonize me by suggesting she just might not want to respond to me.  Calling her bluff (and her presumptuousness), I take her up on her offer.  And then you, without anyone's invitation, interrupt this exchange to gaslight a conversation as the self-proclaimed board police without adding anything to the conversation.  And I'm the rude one?

Right.

Do me a favor and take a page from MiserereNovis's book...don't respond to me.  Preferably, never, ever, ever.  Ever.

 

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, PacMan said:

Wait...let me get this right.  MiserereNobis butts into a conversation and trolls questions that I did not ask her.  Then she tries to antagonize me by suggesting she just might not want to respond to me.  Calling her bluff (and her presumptuousness), I take her up on her offer.  And then you, without anyone's invitation, interrupt this exchange to gaslight a conversation as the self-proclaimed board police without adding anything to the conversation.  And I'm the rude one?

Right.

Do me a favor and take a page from MiserereNovis's book...don't respond to me.  Preferably, never, ever, ever.  Ever.

 

I made the same mistake because of the image of his avatar but MiserereNobis, is a male. And when you react to Happy and to myself that you don't want us to respond to you, it feels pretty childish. Like closing your ears and singing. But to each their own. 

[Nemesis]

This thread has gone down hill.  I’m closing it.