It is currently Thu Sep 20, 2018 7:43 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:25 pm 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7294
It could be argued that Joseph Smith's new concept of a Father having a tangible body is backed by one of the greatest visions recorded in the bible. It certainly gives reason to pause.

Revelation 5:7 wrote:
And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

_________________
SECOND TOKEN OF THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD (Telestial Forum thread)

Be sure to check back for changes, updates, and additions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:26 pm 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7294
Image

_________________
SECOND TOKEN OF THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD (Telestial Forum thread)

Be sure to check back for changes, updates, and additions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 2:32 pm 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7294
Image

_________________
SECOND TOKEN OF THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD (Telestial Forum thread)

Be sure to check back for changes, updates, and additions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 11:10 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:02 pm
Posts: 6459
This critic "Gleefully points out" how small poor Dan's old school apologetics world has become as it continues to collapsed around him.

He now rates two blistering podcasts highlighting how ugly his generation of apologetics is and how obsolete it is rapidly becoming in an enlightened internet age with many eyes upon him.

I feel sorry for Dan and the legacy of his life being so exposed and documented and shamed.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:13 am 
God

Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:00 pm
Posts: 1030
Grindael, is there a combined timeline with all of these accounts, first-hand (including dictated) and otherwise?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:37 am 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7294
Quote:
gleefully


Mormons, including Daniel Peterson, love to gleefully go about and testify of the First Vision as if it was a fact and that they know it actually happened. They gleefully turn their faith/hope into a matter of absolute knowledge as if it's already etched in stone and there is nothing anyone can do to excuse the reality of the First Vision.

The problem with the Mormons is that they don't claim Smith's miraculous vision is a matter of faith but is a matter of fact in which they "know" to be true. I simply can't think of anything more threatening to humanity than for a religious leader to come along and make a miraculous claim and then believers saying it happened absolutely and since it can't be disproven it may be accepted as reality and fact because of feelings they claim to get from an invisible Ghost. But this Ghost never at anytime makes an appearance or proves that it's an actual living Being. The Ghost is ever hidden and invisible.

Bottom line: The First Vision is simply a claim made by Joseph Smith and there is absolutely zero evidence to support that it actually happened. Further, the so-called Ghost that enters the minds of Mormons can't be validated as anything other than their own thoughts and emotional feelings.

_________________
SECOND TOKEN OF THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD (Telestial Forum thread)

Be sure to check back for changes, updates, and additions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 9:49 am 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 6170
Location: The Land of Lorn
Meadowchick,

I've done some comparisons here. https://mormonitemusings.com/tag/first-vision/#Think2

But I'm not sure there is a comprehensive timeline that has been done. I'll be doing one when I get back to work on my paper on the claimed First Vision. It is no easy task to congeal all of the apologist arguments and rebut them. But I feel it is necessary.

There is even a thing about the weather for the year 1820 and how it could have been on certain days... http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/LDS ... ision.html

There are so many things wrong with this, but these things get out there (like the Matthew Brown comparison - see the first link above) and Mormon Apologists quote it as a reference without giving any real information and when you buy the books, and finally see the evidence it's all made up BS. Time after time I run into this.

_________________

Riding on a speeding train;
trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain;
Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world
can change your direction:
One step where events converge
may alter your perception.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:00 am 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7294
Daniel Peterson wrote:
Some critics of Mormonism deny that any reference to Joseph Smith’s First Vision existed prior to 1832. This claim is false: Hostile witnesses had demonstrably heard elements of the First Vision by 1827, and newspaper reports strongly suggest that Latter-day Saint missionaries were alluding to it by early 1831 (i.e., within a year of the founding of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints).


I won't deny that "elements" of the First Vision existed prior to 1832. But what are those elements when you compare them to the 1838 written account? What exactly are those elements heard by hostile witnesses in 1827? Was it that Smith saw Two Personages, perhaps? You'd think that someone who was personally visited by the bodily Persons of the Father & Son would have mentioned elements to that very claim since it's pretty much the gist of the whole First Vision.

Isn't it true that Smith doesn't get around to telling people that he actually saw God the Father in bodily form until 1838? Why did he leave the main character out of his earlier claim of a glorious visitation? I'll tell you the very reason: Smith never actually saw God the Father in bodily form but made that up later to embellish his visionary experience and develop his new theology.

_________________
SECOND TOKEN OF THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD (Telestial Forum thread)

Be sure to check back for changes, updates, and additions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:01 am 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 6170
Location: The Land of Lorn
I've been fascinated for a long time with Peterson's gig at the Deseret News, and of course his blog, and how he tries to break down complex issues into a page or two with a few links for references. I would simply call all of this fluff, basically meaningless drivel crafted for a certain audience. He is a Professor with credentials, but you wouldn't know it from reading any of his contributions on these various forums. Nothing about what he does conveys professionalism, and his issues with plagiarism and lifting things from FAIRMORMON and other sources is very troubling. What I see is a wasted life, and a person who has been backed into a corner and is desperately trying to stay relevant. There is nothing new coming from any of these Apologists, just more lame excuses and silly posturing about foundational issues that real researchers have shown are deeply flawed. When you aren't searching for the truth, the real evidence of it, this is what you get. Can anyone point to a really good article (complete with serious footnotes), or a book that Peterson has authored that has in any way benefited the study of Mormon History? I can't think of one, but perhaps some on you may know of one.

_________________

Riding on a speeding train;
trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain;
Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world
can change your direction:
One step where events converge
may alter your perception.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:04 am 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 6170
Location: The Land of Lorn
When I think of Peterson, I think of the flip side of what some great Mormon Historians have done, the publishing of the Joseph Smith papers. There is simply no comparison here between the two.

_________________

Riding on a speeding train;
trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain;
Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world
can change your direction:
One step where events converge
may alter your perception.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:10 am 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 6170
Location: The Land of Lorn
It is also a matter of trust. As a writer and researcher, I KNOW I can trust what the folks at the JSP publish, even though I don't agree with some of their conclusions. You just can't make that claim with rabid Apologists like Peterson.

_________________

Riding on a speeding train;
trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain;
Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world
can change your direction:
One step where events converge
may alter your perception.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:37 am 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7294
Daniel Peterson wrote:
Moreover, he seems initially to have regarded his First Vision as a private personal experience and not as the mighty dispensation-opening theophany that we now treasure for its doctrinal richness.


It's fair to say that the First Vision was nothing more than a private and personal experience because there were no witnesses or collaborating testimony that the event actually took place. But is it fair to say that Smith initially regarded the event as a private and personal matter? I suppose you could come to this conclusion based on the fact that there is no written record of this telling prior to 1832. But it could be construed that the reason for this lack of telling or a written account could be simply that it didn't really happen but was fabricated and crafted later when it seemed like a good idea to put an account of a spiritual vision to pen and paper.

According to the vision, Smith learned that there was no true church on the earth. That's utterly mind shattering and an earth shaking revelation. It certainly points and paves the way to a dispensation-opening theophany seeing God & Jesus came down to personally inform Smith, therefore it must be concluded that Smith is going to lead the charge in getting this corrected -- hence the First Vision.

Smith was forbidden to join any of the Christian churches and then this:

"many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time"

_________________
SECOND TOKEN OF THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD (Telestial Forum thread)

Be sure to check back for changes, updates, and additions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:03 am 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7294
Daniel Peterson wrote:
Moreover, he seems initially to have regarded his First Vision as a private personal experience and not as the mighty dispensation-opening theophany that we now treasure for its doctrinal richness.


But, Smith said this:

Joseph Smith 1838 wrote:
many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time


Perhaps Daniel Peterson might take a moment to explain what those things might have been in order to justify his statement in the Deseret News. Come on Daniel, bring your sorry ass back to Mormon Discussions so Shulem can throughoughly kick it. Just what might have been those MANY THINGS that were told to Smith straight from the mouth of Jesus while his Father stood at his side speechless letting his Son do all the talking?

Care to speculate, Mr. Peterson, sir?

Come on, don't be chicken. You're a big school teacher and I'm just little ole Shulem talking to you. I want to kick your ass.

_________________
SECOND TOKEN OF THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD (Telestial Forum thread)

Be sure to check back for changes, updates, and additions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:06 pm 
Son of Perdition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 7:48 pm
Posts: 7294
Daniel Peterson Church News wrote:
Having considered for many years the standard arguments against the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, Daniel C. Peterson says he “can’t manage to disbelieve.”


This is because Mr. Peterson is assuming the Book of Mormon is true no matter what -- the very core and foundation to what he claims is true cannot be refuted because it's already true. He believes in the Book of Mormon because it's already true so the evidence to the contrary is already DOA. It's just a formality to dismiss it and does so based on the testimony that he received from a Ghost.

Daniel Peterson Church News wrote:
My argument would be that all of the counter-explanations of the Book of Mormon that I’ve looked at—and I think I’ve looked at all of them—run into walls


It can be argued that claims to the validity of the Book of Mormon run into walls. Plagiarism, horses, swords, and a host of all kinds of problems run into walls. The Book of Mormon reads like a book of fiction and all those problems hit the walls. Nonfiction books substantiated with valid evidence and scientific proofs don't run into walls like the Book of Mormon does.

Daniel Peterson Church News wrote:
I just don’t have the faith to disbelieve Joseph Smith’s story


What you're really saying is that Joseph Smith's story is based on fact and is true regardless of faith. You are basing your belief on sure knowledge that you know the story is true no matter what. Hence, your original belief in Smith is not based on faith but on the declaration that you know it's true -- true facts which can never be refuted. This however is not the basis of the Christian religion which is based on FAITH and which is the first principle of the LDS gospel. But here we see that you put your beliefs in Smith higher than you do in Jesus. You claim to have absolute knowledge that Smith is true and there is just no room for faith to say otherwise but reduce Jesus to the level of faith as afforded by the LDS Article of Faith. Hence, Mormons put Smith above Jesus.

_________________
SECOND TOKEN OF THE MELCHIZEDEK PRIESTHOOD (Telestial Forum thread)

Be sure to check back for changes, updates, and additions


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 12:24 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 18977
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Daniel Peterson Church News wrote:
My argument would be that all of the counter-explanations of the Book of Mormon that I’ve looked at—and I think I’ve looked at all of them—run into walls


There is no reason for anyone to take the claim that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient document seriously. There is no argument to be made for considering it an ancient document. The book has all the marks of a 19th century text. Period. There is absolutely no need for anyone to provide a counter explanation for the production of the Book of Mormon, as there is no evidence that it dates to antiquity.

I challenge anyone to provide me with the text from which the Book of Mormon was translated. Then I will consider the possibility that it is an authentic ancient text.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:09 pm 
God

Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:00 pm
Posts: 1030
Kishkumen wrote:
Daniel Peterson Church News wrote:
My argument would be that all of the counter-explanations of the Book of Mormon that I’ve looked at—and I think I’ve looked at all of them—run into walls


There is no reason for anyone to take the claim that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient document seriously. There is no argument to be made for considering it an ancient document. The book has all the marks of a 19th century text. Period. There is absolutely no need for anyone to provide a counter explanation for the production of the Book of Mormon, as there is no evidence that it dates to antiquity.

I challenge anyone to provide me with the text from which the Book of Mormon was translated. Then I will consider the possibility that it is an authentic ancient text.


The same goes for the authority claims. "You say god told you to tell me? How can you be sure enough of your ability to channel god so much as to oblige me to heed your word as god's?" I understand how this happens, but I do not see a way to respect god but still accept someone as god's mouthpiece. I cannot believe anyone could properly make such a claim.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:11 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 6170
Location: The Land of Lorn
That's just it, Kish, the COUNTER ARGUMENTS "run into walls", which are speculation. But this is a neat way to avoid the actual evidence, (the book itself) which tells us that it is a 19th century production. Joseph purposefully avoided speaking of how he "translated" the Book of Mormon, for obvious reasons.

_________________

Riding on a speeding train;
trapped inside a revolving door;
Lost in the riddle of a quatrain;
Stuck in an elevator between floors.
One focal point in a random world
can change your direction:
One step where events converge
may alter your perception.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:35 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 18977
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
Meadowchik wrote:
The same goes for the authority claims. "You say god told you to tell me? How can you be sure enough of your ability to channel god so much as to oblige me to heed your word as god's?" I understand how this happens, but I do not see a way to respect god but still accept someone as god's mouthpiece. I cannot believe anyone could properly make such a claim.


Now and again I reflect on how silly it would be to trust someone else's perception of God as a guide for one's own life. Seriously, I was just thinking about this yesterday. It tells you how adrift and desperate we all are to place our trust in some person who claims to know God's will. It is not an approach to life that I have use for any longer.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:37 pm 
Seedy Academician
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 4:00 pm
Posts: 18977
Location: The Brutus Memorial Rectory at Cassius University
grindael wrote:
That's just it, Kish, the COUNTER ARGUMENTS "run into walls", which are speculation. But this is a neat way to avoid the actual evidence, (the book itself) which tells us that it is a 19th century production. Joseph purposefully avoided speaking of how he "translated" the Book of Mormon, for obvious reasons.


Indeed!

But I will never cease to be amazed by the apologists' ploy of placing the burden for disproving Mormonism's fantastic claims on others when they have not effectively demonstrated their truth in the first place.

Anyone can make extravagant claims, and it is the burden of the person making the claims to prove those claims are true. I have no responsibility to prove empty claims false.

It is such a basic point. And I think it is wildly irresponsible of the LDS community to inculcate a habit of accepting unverified wild claims. But then, unless they do that, there is no Mormonism. Mormonism with any substantive attempt to verify Mormon claims ceases to be Mormonism as soon as that responsibility is accepted and then the inevitable failure to verify follows.


Last edited by Kishkumen on Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:38 pm 
God

Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:00 pm
Posts: 1030
grindael wrote:
Meadowchick,

I've done some comparisons here. https://mormonitemusings.com/tag/first-vision/#Think2

But I'm not sure there is a comprehensive timeline that has been done. I'll be doing one when I get back to work on my paper on the claimed First Vision. It is no easy task to congeal all of the apologist arguments and rebut them. But I feel it is necessary.

There is even a thing about the weather for the year 1820 and how it could have been on certain days... http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/LDS ... ision.html

There are so many things wrong with this, but these things get out there (like the Matthew Brown comparison - see the first link above) and Mormon Apologists quote it as a reference without giving any real information and when you buy the books, and finally see the evidence it's all made up BS. Time after time I run into this.


Thanks so much, again! I just finished the last segment today. I really enjoyed it.

(And I kinds wanna crowdsource fund a trip to Hawaii for Sandra Tanner. She spoke to my husband and I when we stopped by ULM last summer. )


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Sandra Tanner, John Dehlin, grindael Podcast
PostPosted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:41 pm 
God

Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:00 pm
Posts: 1030
Kishkumen wrote:


Now and again I reflect on how silly it would be to trust someone else's perception of God as a guide for one's own life. Seriously, I was just thinking about this yesterday. It tells you how adrift and desperate we all are to place our trust in some person who claims to know God's will. It is not an approach to life that I have use for any longer.


I think it is the tribalism in us. It kept us alive for a long time but perhaps it isn't forever necessary.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 104 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], lostindc, Tuna_Surprise and 44 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group