A very Strang finding

[Calm]

7 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

just never realized the fragility of Mormonism up till now. 

Just like other human activities that involved strong connections and emotional investments. 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, teddyaware said:

course the correct answer for any truly faithful, testimony bearing member of the Church is to be 100% ‘Mormon’ and 0% realist.

This assumes one can’t be a Saint and be realistic at the same time. They are not exclusive categories. Huge overlap imo for many.   One can be 100% a Saint and 75% a realist, for example. 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

All I know, is compared to how i felt my entire life about Mormonism, it feels extremely fragile now. But I'm trying, and I dont give up just to give up, that's not who I am.

Why assume it is Mormonism that has changed and become fragile rather than your perception of it?  Not saying it is a bad thing, but it is important to frame what is going on and it is you that is changing (as we are meant to as we experience life) and not the Church when you learn new things. 
 

As long as you frame the issue as being outside of yourself, it will be harder to find a workable solution because you don’t have much effect on others (few people do in the long run), but you can control yourself and your own reactions and look for healthy, reasonable ways to react. Like waiting to make decisions until you have gathered more information in order to make informed decisions rather than ‘gut’ ones. 

[AtlanticMike]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Why assume it is Mormonism that has changed and become fragile rather than your perception of it?  Not saying it is a bad thing, but it is important to frame what is going on and it is you that is changing (as we are meant to as we experience life) and not the Church when you learn new things. 
 

As long as you frame the issue as being outside of yourself, it will be harder to find a workable solution because you don’t have much effect on others (few people do in the long run), but you can control yourself and your own reactions and look for healthy, reasonable ways to react. Like waiting to make decisions until you have gathered more information in order to make informed decisions rather than ‘gut’ ones. 

Dang calm, that was a very meaningful and caring post. I'll definitely think about that, it makes alot of sense. You have a great way of explaining tough situations. I feel as if I owe you money for a therapy session 🤣, do you take paypal?🤣🤣 Thanks again

[Stargazer]

On 2/5/2021 at 8:22 PM, CA Steve said:

Mormonism is a lot more diverse than most of us realize.

And the more you hang around here, diverse it gets!

[Stargazer]

On 2/5/2021 at 9:46 PM, MiserereNobis said:

True. So what do we call you? Nelsonites?

I like how everything is an -ite.

That's just a language convention. Check the Bible and you have Hittites, Israelites, and Canaanites. "-ite" is "people of"

It's much like the suffix "-ia", which refers to "land of", so that you'll find countries like Czechoslovakia, "the land of the Czechs and Slovaks", now split into Czechia and Slovakia, the land of the Czechs and the land of the Slovaks.

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Yes ma'am, I'm starting to see that I have to monitor what I say if I want to keep certain relationships healthy. I've just never realized the fragility of Mormonism up till now. 

Every belief system has its fragile members. Political, religious or scientific, there are always some who cannot stand to be questioned, or see questions raised. The members of the CoJCoLDS are no different: some get very uncomfortable if certain kinds of questions are raised. It's a universal human weakness, actually. 

And then there are those who gladly meet questions.

[Stargazer]

On 2/5/2021 at 2:47 PM, AtlanticMike said:

So I'm still studying women and priesthood, last night I came across a site that said another sect of Mormonism (the Stragites) allowed women to be ordained as teachers and priests. Apparently, the strangites numbered 5000 before James Strang died. I had no idea. So I looked them up and found out that James also wrote a book of scripture called, The Book of the Law of the Lord. And upon finding the page I provided, I broke out in a sweat and apparently turned white as a ghost according to my wife. Through all my research in the past 2 months this page for some reason has affected me more than anything else. Does anyone no of a good place or book that could help me research the Strangites? Also, does it bother anyone else that 5000 people followed this man?

My second companion on my mission, I'll call him Nolan, as that was his name, was thunderstruck (not as much as you seemed to be) when we encountered German members of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints while going door-to-door one summer evening. After our door approach was kindly rebuffed by a man who told us that Brigham Young was an apostate, we went to the next house, but Nolan stopped between the houses and seemed genuinely shocked. I asked him what the problem was, and he said he had heard of these people, but never, ever expected to run into any! It was almost comical. In Germany, of all places!!!  I laugh to this day whenever I think of it. Here I was, a convert of barely five years, and it didn't bother me at all, but here Nolan was, born and raised in the Church, absolutely gobsmacked.

It got worse! The next three houses were all Reorganites!  All one family, obviously.  At the third door, we were invited in briefly by a woman who said she was RLDS, but wasn't a believer, so there we were, encouraging her to read the Book of Mormon and pray about it to get a testimony of the gospel! Is that irony? These folks engaged with us as if we were cousins of a sort, somewhat wayward, but family nonetheless. It was a great experience, actually! Except that my companion was a bit taken aback. He got over it.

These folks attended church only once a month, since their branch met for services about 100 miles north of where they lived.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

This assumes one can’t be a Saint and be realistic at the same time. They are not exclusive categories. Huge overlap imo for many.   One can be 100% a Saint and 75% a realist, for example. 

Or like me, 100% both!  

For @teddyaware, I don't even know what it means to be 0% realist. Reality is my drug.

Edited February 7, 2021 by Stargazer

[teddyaware]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

This assumes one can’t be a Saint and be realistic at the same time. They are not exclusive categories. Huge overlap imo for many.   One can be 100% a Saint and 75% a realist, for example. 

In this instance, I took Mike’s usage and meaning of the word “realist” to be more or less synonymous with the word skeptic because he said he stated out as “80% Mormon and 20% realist,” but now that he’s finding so many facts about Church history that are unsettling to him he’s only “65% Mormon and 35% realist” and fears for his ability to continue to believe in the restored gospel if he becomes any more of a realist. 

Edited February 7, 2021 by teddyaware

[longview]

40 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Or like me, 100% both!  

For @teddyaware, I don't even know what it means to be 0% realist. Reality is my drug.

We had a discussion a while ago about "Priesthood Dimensions" expressing "Coarse Matter Dimensions".  Remember?  It is all 100% MATRIX.

[teddyaware]

48 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Or like me, 100% both!  

For @teddyaware, I don't even know what it means to be 0% realist. Reality is my drug.

In this instance, I took Mike’s usage and meaning of the word “realist” to be more or less synonymous with the word skeptic because he said he stated out as “80% Mormon and 20% realist,” but now that he’s finding so many facts about Church history that are unsettling to him he’s only “65% Mormon and 35% realist” and fears for his ability to continue to believe in the restored gospel if he becomes any more of a realist.

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

In this instance, I took Mike’s usage and meaning of the word “realist” to be more or less synonymous with the word skeptic because he said he stated out as “80% Mormon and 20% realist,” but now that he’s finding so many facts about Church history that are unsettling to him he’s only “65% Mormon and 35% realist” and fears for his ability to continue to believe in the restored gospel if he becomes any more of a realist. 

It all seems to depend on what's real then doesn't it?

Anti realism as a philosophy counts revelation, visions, etc. as just as real as anything else, along with phenomenology.

It is simply a logical position which cannot be defeated.

I wish LDS folks understood that, then we would not need apologetics.

It takes about 150 years for non philosophers to comprehend new ways of seeing the world.  It's all happening as we speak.

All the BYU philosophers are Heideggarians now, like Falconer.

It won't be long.

 It's as simple as knowing that all we can know about reality is what our mind and spirit and senses can tell us

  It's so totally obvious I can't understand why  It needs to be pointed out.

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Stargazer]

58 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

In this instance, I took Mike’s usage and meaning of the word “realist” to be more or less synonymous with the word skeptic because he said he stated out as “80% Mormon and 20% realist,” but now that he’s finding so many facts about Church history that are unsettling to him he’s only “65% Mormon and 35% realist” and fears for his ability to continue to believe in the restored gospel if he becomes any more of a realist.

I guess that means that being a realist is being an atheist?  At least, to Mike it is, I guess.

 

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, longview said:

We had a discussion a while ago about "Priesthood Dimensions" expressing "Coarse Matter Dimensions".  Remember?  It is all 100% MATRIX.

Didn't follow it, sorry.

But...

OR...

 

Edited February 7, 2021 by Stargazer

[Chum]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I guess that means that being a realist is being an atheist?  At least, to Mike it is, I guess.

Skeptic seems a more reasonable moniker. It's a seed from which springs some of the strongest faith.

[Stargazer]

1 minute ago, Chum said:

Skeptic seems a more reasonable moniker. It's a seed from which springs some of the strongest faith.

I'll grant you that. But it's also a seed from which sprouts full atheism.

[teddyaware]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It all seems to depend on what's real then doesn't it?

Anti realism as a philosophy counts revelation, visions, etc. as just as real as anything else, along with phenomenology.

It is simply a logical position which cannot be defeated.

I wish LDS folks understood that, then we would not need apologetics.

It takes about 150 years for non philosophers to comprehend new ways of seeing the world.  It's all happening as we speak.

All the BYU philosophers are Heideggarians now, like Falconer.

It won't be long.

 It's as simple as knowing that all we can know about reality is what our mind and spirit and senses can tell us

  It's so totally obvious I can't understand why  It needs to be pointed out.

 

It’s because the cynicism, skepticism and defeatism of the fallen natural man all too often intrude into the thinking of many believing Latter-Day Saints, including the brainy ones, causing them to almost irresistibly seek for testimony confirming knowledge by appealing to the arm of flesh.

Edited February 7, 2021 by teddyaware

[smac97]

13 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Quote

Finally, I'm not sure what it is that caused you to "{break} out in a sweat and ... {turn} white as a ghost."  Do you want to clarify?

Not really sure tell you the truth. But I've always considered myself an 80% mormon and 20% realist.

I'm not sure what this means.  Are you suggesting that Mormonism and realism are in some way incompatible, such that choosing some of one comes and the expense of choosing some of the other?

Quote

I've never been one to push Mormonism on anyone, even struggling mormons. I believe the best way to spread the gospel is through your actions, to make people wonder why in the hell this guy is so happy with life. I've experienced this hundreds of times throughout my life. People ask me all the time why I'm so happy, why I smile, and I've always thought it was my Mormonism and the comfort I get from believing in something that gives me answers to so many of lifes difficult questions. 

That has been my experience as well.  I have long appreciated Ether 12:4's expression of this sentiment: "Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God."

The Restored Gospel is a wonderful anchor in these turbulent times.

Quote

      But the more I research, the more my mormon/realist % changes. Today I feel like I'm 65% mormon and 35% realist.

Still not understanding what you mean by this.

Quote

And the scariest part of the whole situation is that when I speak to people I've known my entire life about it, or ask questions about Mormonism, I'm starting to see a wall being built between most relationships.  

"When I speak to people ... about it."  "It" refers to what?

Quote

There's no way to ask questions without making them uncomfortable, I'm starting to realize I have to stay silent if I want to keep a relationship with them.

Here's my guess: It sounds like you have encountered information online, likely "big lists" of controversies culled by critics of the Church and presented in the most lurid, maximized-shock-value kind of way.  You are now starting to "ask questions" of your church acquaintances based on these compilations, and find that many (most?) are not willing or able to address them to your satisfaction.  And you are now taking that inability/unwillingness to provide answers to your questions as evidence of there not being any answers to your questions.  Am I in the ballpark?

I addressed this sort of thing back in December 2019: 

Thoughts on Addressing a Struggle with, or Loss of, Faith 

I wonder if you would be willing to read it (the first post) and then see if it addresses some of your concerns.

Quote

Now the biggest question to myself is, what happens if I reach 49% mormon and 51% realists. Do I lose all my relationships with my mormon friends, will it be to difficult for them to be around me? 

Again, I still don't know what you mean by differentiating "Mormonism" from "realism."  Could you clarify?

As for you losing your "relationships with {your} Mormon friends," I'm not sure what to say there, either.  If you have friends who are unwilling or unable to discuss the controversies you have in mind, or who are uncomfortable with such things, why continue to insist on bringing up such topics?  Particularly if you can find alternative ways to discuss those controversies (such as by doing your own research, coming to this board, finding friends who are willing/able to discuss them, etc.).

Quote

       Now, concerning the page I provided from the book of the law of the lord. I guess the realist side of me sees that page, and realizes that if the BOM is true, then the witnesses in the book of the law of the lord, should be a bunch of liars.

Well, let's take a look at their testimony:

Quote

BE it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, to whom this Book of the Law of the Lord shall come, that James J. Strang has the plates of the ancient Book of the Law of the Lord given to Moses, from which he translated this law, and has shown them to us.  We examined them with our eyes, and handled them with our hands. The engravings are beautiful antique workmanship, bearing a striking resemblance to the ancient oriental languages; and those from which the laws in this book were translated are eighteen in number, about seven inches and three-eights wide, by nine inches long, occasionally embellished with beautiful pictures.

And we testify unto you all that the everlasting kingdom of God is established, in which this law shall be kept, till it brings in rest and everlasting righteousness to all the faithful.

Here they testify that

1) Strang had plates ("Strang has the plates...").
2) Strang had shown the plates to the witnesses ("Strang ... has shown them to us...").
3) The witnesses "examined" the plates "with {their} eyes" and "handled them with {their} hands."
4) The "engravings" on the plates "are beautiful antique workmanship, bearing a striking resemblance to the ancient oriental languages."

It seems as if Strang did, indeed, have physical plates, showed them to the witnesses, let the witnesses examine and touch them, and the witnesses describe what they look like.

The witnesses, then, were providing "percipient" testimony here.  They are saying what they saw.  See here:

Quote

In law, a witness is someone who has knowledge about a matter, whether they have sensed it or are testifying on another witnesses' behalf. In law a witness is someone who, either voluntarily or under compulsion, provides testimonial evidence, either oral or written, of what he or she knows or claims to know.

A percipient witness (or eyewitness) is one with knowledge obtained through his or her own senses (e.g., visual perception, hearing, smell, touch). That perception might be either with the unaided human sense or with the aid of an instrument, such as microscope or stethoscope.

Items 1-4 seem to fall within what I would call "percipient testimony."  

Moving on:

5) The plates are "ancient," that they had been "given to Moses," and that Strang "translated."

Now this part may be subject to some dispute.  How do the witnesses know these things?  No explanation is given, no factual predicate, no foundation.  This part is hard to characterize as "percipient" testimony.

Next:

6) There were "eighteen" of something, apparently "engravings" by which they apparently meant there were 18 plates.
7) The 18 "engravings" (plates) were  7 and 3/8" wide by 9" long.
8 ) Some or all of the "engravings" (plates) were "occasionally embellished with beautiful pictures."

And here we're back into "percipient testimony" territory.  The witnesses are just describing what they saw.

9) They declare that "the everlasting kingdom of God is established."

This seems more like an expression of religious belief/opinion, rather than a clinical statement of percipient testimony.

So the witnesses may have testified to things about which they lacked personal knowledge (item 5 above) and about their personal beliefs/opinions (item 9).  I don't think that means you need to call them "a bunch of liars."

And in the end, their "percipient" testimony is about seeing plates.  Not much there about where the plates came from.

Quote

I guess that's why I broke out in a sweat,  because if James Strang was able to manufacture plates and get 7 men to be witnesses of there authenticity,

I don't think he did that, though.

Also, what do you know of the lives and character and trustworthiness and credibility of the Strangite witnesses?  

Quote

well, there's a chance the guy I have looked up to my whole life could of done the same exact thing and had 11 witnesses swear to the BOM authenticity.

They did not swear to that.

Here's the testimony of the Three Witnesses:

Quote

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

So we have the Three Witnesses saying:

1) "We ... have seen the plates which contain this record."

Percipient testimony.

2) The record is "of the people of Nephi," "of the Lamanites" and "of the people of Jared."
3) They know the record "ha{s} been translated by the gift and power of God" and that they "know of a surety that the work is true."
4) They know #3 because the voice of God had "declared it unto {them}."

This is more like "hearsay" testimony.  Unlike the Strangite witnesses, the Three Witnesses explain how they know/believe the record to be ancient.  They provide foundation for these statements.  Context.

5) They "have seen the engravings which are upon the plates."

Percipient testimony.

6) The plates were "shown unto {them} by the power of God, and not of man" by "an angel of God came down from heaven" who "brought {the plates} and laid {them} before {the witnesses'} eyes," such that they "beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon."
7) They state that they were shown these things "by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ," such that they "beheld and bear record that these things are true."

Again, the Three Witnesses are here explaining how they know/believe the record to be ancient. 

8 ) The witnesses declare things things to be "marvelous."

This is an expression of opinion and perception about what they have witnessed.

9) The witnesses state that "the voice of the Lord commanded {them} that {they} should bear record of it."

Percipient testimony.

10) The witnesses declare their desire to be "faithful in Christ" and "rid {their} garments of the blood of all men" and "be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens."

Expression of faith/belief.

Now let's look at the statement of the Eight Witnesses:

Quote

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That Joseph Smith, Jun., the translator of this work, has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken, which have the appearance of gold; and as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands; and we also saw the engravings thereon, all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship. And this we bear record with words of soberness, that the said Smith has shown unto us, for we have seen and hefted, and know of a surety that the said Smith has got the plates of which we have spoken. And we give our names unto the world, to witness unto the world that which we have seen. And we lie not, God bearing witness of it.

Let's break it down:

1) They say "Joseph Smith ... has shown unto us the plates of which hath been spoken."  They later repeat that Joseph "has shown" them the plates.
2) They say the plates "have the appearance of gold."
3) They say they "handle{d} with {their} hands" the "leaves" of the plates that Joseph had translated.
4) They say they "saw the engravings" on the plates, "all of which has the appearance of ancient work, and of curious workmanship."
5) They say that "have seen and hefted" the plates.
6) They say that they "know of a surety" that Joseph was in possession of the plates.

This is pretty much all percipient testimony.

Quote

I'm starting to realize no matter how much I research, I'll just keep digging a hole so deep, at some point, I might not be able to climb out. 

I don't understand.  What "hole?"  What is it that you think you are finding that is incompatible with having faith?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 7, 2021 by smac97

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

All the BYU philosophers are Heideggarians now, like Falconer.

O.M.G.  What now?  Are you joking?

To start with, I think that's Heideggerian. Maybe in Austria they'd spell that as Heideggar. But Martin was German. Name means "heath farmer" in case of trivial pursuit.

I'm a little bothered by BYU professors being disciples of a Nazi-symphasizing philosopher, though. He was an actual Party member, although one gets the impression that he was only a member out of necessity -- at least that's what he claimed after the war, but I never met an admitted Nazi supporter during five years residence in Germany. I gather that party leaders didn't take him seriously, and he didn't last long in the university post that he took under the regime. But his denazification hearing nevertheless resulted in him being labelled a "Mitläufer" or "fellow traveler".  With all the implications.

I don't know if all of this amounts to nothing more than well-poisoning, and that his theories can be taken serious after all. Do they hold water independently?

But I'm still not comfortable with the idea of the quoted statement above.

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

I guess that means that being a realist is being an atheist?  At least, to Mike it is, I guess.

 

Maybe allow Mike to clarify if he has been understood first before making assumptions. 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Maybe allow Mike to clarify if he has been understood first before making assumptions. 

Of course! But I reserve the right to speculate in advance of clarifications -- this is a method of inducing clarifications, by the way. Maybe not the most elegant method, I admit.

[AtlanticMike]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Of course! But I reserve the right to speculate in advance of clarifications -- this is a method of inducing clarifications, by the way. Maybe not the most elegant method, I admit.

First off, I'll admit, I need to do a better job realizing when I write something weird like 80%/20%, people online reading this take it quite literally,  I write like I talk, as if you guys were here in front of me. So let me try to explain. First off, I dont see the realism % getting higher neccesarily meaning atheism. I see it more of understanding life without a strict adherents to mormon policies. For instance, the 100% mormon I view as the person who kicks out a nonmember at a dance because her skirt is 2 inches to short. Also, I know members who view the people making a cup of coffee at a convenience store as sinners. So much so, it upsets them to go inside. Also, me being what I call a 80/20% mormon, allows me to realize even though the mormon in me had alot fun writing this post, the 20% realist part of me allows me to see I'm a total hypocrite for writing a post about people judging, all the while I'm doing the exact same thing I'm accusing them of while writing this🤣🤣.  

  All I'm saying is, sometimes the way we  as mormons view sin is a detriment to our relationships with family and friends. I cant get pass the fact that jesus, to set an example, hung around with sinners and people who never bathed like john the Baptist. But today, if an investigator walks in with the missionaries with her boobs hanging out a little bit because she's never been to church with strict dress codes, members usually will freak out. I dont like that!

      

[AtlanticMike]

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not sure what this means.  Are you suggesting that Mormonism and realism are in some way incompatible, such that choosing some of one comes and the expense of choosing some of the other?

No I think they're very compatible. I just think if you become to Mormonie, you start to see the world differently, almost as if everyone who's not mormon is a worse sinner than you are. But I also realize that's not just mormons, that can be found in all religions and also atheist, atheist are some of the most judgmental people around. Am I being judgemental ?😁

[AtlanticMike]

13 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

    But the more I research, the more my mormon/realist % changes. Today I feel like I'm 65% mormon and 35% realist.

Still not understanding what you mean by this.

Smac97, I've already told you once, you need to dumb it down a little bit, you're way to smart to understand what I'm talking about🤣🤣. 

     It just means as I learn more about church history my view of Mormonism is changing. 

Edited February 7, 2021 by AtlanticMike