Three Powerful Books

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

MG,

Given the list I gave you can you take this statement, "... it seems to me as though there are folks here that are still functioning in fundamentalist mode. Either-or. Black or white. I’ve always believed that the truth can be found somewhere in the middle.", and provide the middle ground to each bullet point so we can better understand where the middle is on each issue?

- Doc

[_Dr Exiled]

I do think that it is rather disingenuous to stir all of your grievances into one pot as though by doing that you are increasing the weight of the pot. I’ve seen this over and over again with critics. Each item in the pot needs to ALWAYS be investigated individually to be fair.

This is total nonsense. If an alleged perpetrator is on trial and the prosecutor has video evidence implicating the perpetrator, has eyewitness testimony implicating the perpetrator, has scientific evidence implicating the perpetrator, has a confession from the perpetrator, should an appellate court overturn the verdict because there is too much evidence?

I get that each item should be investigated. We aren't in a live debate with limited time. So, go through Doc's list one by one and let's see where it goes. Take your time, but, go through each item and let's see where the supposed weaknesses of the "critics" arguments are.

[_Philo Sofee]

The main weakness of criticisms has always been that they don't agree with the church. It's why they never take it on with listed individual items..... this is how MG will ultimately end up defending. If it ain't testimony building, it ain't true. Now lets get on with 3 MORE powerful books supporting Mormonism! :rolleyes:

[_mentalgymnast]

Joseph Smith was a well known treasure digger from a family that itself was well known for being superstitious and constantly looking for a get rich quick scheme.

We know that nobody ever really saw the gold plates.

We know that the gold plates were not used in the "translation" of the Book of Mormon.

We know that the Book of Mormon bears striking resemblance to other contemporary books, especially one that Joseph Smith's chief scribe, Oliver Cowdery, was quite familiar with.

We know Joseph Smith plagiarized much of his "translation" of the Bible.

We know that Joseph Smith was blatantly wrong in his "translation" of the Book of Abraham.

We know that Joseph Smith was fooled by the Kinderhook plates hoax.

We know that Joseph Smith never told anyone about the so-called "first vision" until over a decade after it happened, and after the church had been formed, and then changed his story about it several times before he died.

We know that he used his position of power to rape and sexually assault many women and girls, and used that power and influence to trick many women and girls into "marrying" him, regardless of their age or current marital status.

We know that he plagiarized much of the temple endowment from masonry.

We know that he engaged in an illegal banking scheme.

We know that he ordered the destruction of a newspaper printing press after it printed the truth about his secret polygamy.

Yet we are supposed to believe this is the guy "God" chose to be his so-called "prophet"? Is that about right? MG is beholden to a joke of a religion and no matter how many ‘nuanced’ angles he takes to compartmentalize his thinking he can’t avoid the irrefutable evidences of history and outright fraud and abuse of his followers.

Facts are real’er than feels. It is what it is.

- Doc

The “kids” have flown the coop and are back home in Missouri. Coming back to this thread to make a comment. I will just say that I have been able to resolve to some extent each one of these ‘deal killers’ you’ve listed. It didn’t come easily. For example, it took years to become comfortable with masonry and Mormonism. But as I came to see Masonry as a ‘template’ to use as a scaffolding for something much bigger it made sense. Did the early Brethren understand what the ‘actual’ relationship was between Masonry and the endowment? I am hesitant to say that they did. Even though they may have thought so.

I think we can find ourselves in some deep Doo Doo if we think that the early brethren had a handle on everything that we think that they should have had. Look at the School of the Prophets, for example. Discussing the very nature of God. And inviting a Hebrew scholar to come and teach Hebrew to be better able to ‘translate’. To think that God was serving everything to them on a silver platter seems to be a ridiculous notion, at least to me. Same thing holds today. I think that’s where we run into problems of belief, when we think that God is serving up everything in its entirety all at once. And at one time.

Line upon line, precept upon precept.

I could go through each item on your list and explain how I’ve been able to dovetail these concerns with a ‘scaffolding’ which includes ‘God’ and restoration of lost truths. But I’m not going to take the time to do that here. I had to do the hard work on my own. It’s a personal path one must take. Is there only one conclusive destination? No. And I’ve repeatedly said that. That’s where we differ. You see only one logical and reasonable conclusion.

You were never able to resolve ANY of these issues you’ve added to your bucket of disbelief?

The question might be, if you were able to resolve one or two issues in your bucket what’s to say that you wouldn’t be able to resolve more? That’s the danger in simply adding a bunch of stuff to the bucket and then call it quits because the bucket is too heavy.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

You see only one logical and reasonable conclusion.

Regards,
MG

Compared to imposing one immoveable illogical and fanciful belief...

[_honorentheos]

Hey MG -

MG,

Given the list I gave you can you take this statement, "... it seems to me as though there are folks here that are still functioning in fundamentalist mode. Either-or. Black or white. I’ve always believed that the truth can be found somewhere in the middle.", and provide the middle ground to each bullet point so we can better understand where the middle is on each issue?

- Doc

[_Physics Guy]

We know [12 seriously disturbing things about Joseph Smith].

I have been able to resolve to some extent each one of these ‘deal killers’ you’ve listed. It didn’t come easily. ...

Line upon line, precept upon precept.

I could go through each item on your list and explain how I’ve been able to dovetail these concerns with a ‘scaffolding’ which includes ‘God’ and restoration of lost truths. ...

The question might be, if you were able to resolve one or two issues in your bucket what’s to say that you wouldn’t be able to resolve more? That’s the danger in simply adding a bunch of stuff to the bucket and then call it quits because the bucket is too heavy.

Line upon line, rationalization upon rationalization, until one builds for oneself the larger structure that can support all these awkward weights. If that's a defense of the Mormon restored gospel, to me it seems self-defeating, because that's not what I'd call belief in a gospel. It sounds as though if I were looking to buy a new car, you'd be trying to sell me on one by assuring me that it's not too heavy to push.

I want a belief that supports its own weight by itself, making sense by itself, and has strength to spare to support other things, making sense of them, too. I want good news, not bad news that has to be spun and re-spun until you find the one special angle of squint from which it won't look so bad. I want to know the truth and be set free, not to work through a list of deal-breaking challenges and find it possible to stagger along under their weight.

[_mcjathan]

[_mentalgymnast]

I have been able to resolve to some extent each one of these ‘deal killers’ you’ve listed. It didn’t come easily. ...

Line upon line, precept upon precept.

I could go through each item on your list and explain how I’ve been able to dovetail these concerns with a ‘scaffolding’ which includes ‘God’ and restoration of lost truths. ...

The question might be, if you were able to resolve one or two issues in your bucket what’s to say that you wouldn’t be able to resolve more? That’s the danger in simply adding a bunch of stuff to the bucket and then call it quits because the bucket is too heavy.

Line upon line, rationalization upon rationalization, until one builds for oneself the larger structure that can support all these awkward weights. If that's a defense of the Mormon restored gospel, to me it seems self-defeating, because that's not what I'd call belief in a gospel. It sounds as though if I were looking to buy a new car, you'd be trying to sell me on one by assuring me that it's not too heavy to push.

I want a belief that supports its own weight by itself, making sense by itself, and has strength to spare to support other things, making sense of them, too. I want good news, not bad news that has to be spun and re-spun until you find the one special angle of squint from which it won't look so bad. I want to know the truth and be set free, not to work through a list of deal-breaking challenges and find it possible to stagger along under their weight.

Hi Physics Guy,

You seem to be proving my point. It all comes down to expectations. And if reality doesn’t meet expectations right smack dab in the middle then what do we do? Reality doesn’t seem to demonstrate a ‘silver platter’ approach to receiving metaphysical truth. I think we can at least agree on that. What we want isn’t always what we get. The LDS gospel/theology allows for an expansive view of the universe and man’s place in it.

Placing too much emphasis on the scaffolding/templates to build a structure can take one’s focus/view off of the underlying beauty of a building ‘fitly framed together’ as the Apostle Paul would put it.

19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; 21In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: 22In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Regards,
MG

[_Physics Guy]

Mormonism fails to meet my expectations by a much wider margin than many alternatives. Most major religions, for example, offer plenty of variants that don't have anything like the heavy baggage of Doc's twelve points. There are plenty of expansive views of the universe and our place in it to be had, which do not require singing praise to a man who coerced multiple young girls into marriage by claiming that God needed them to have sex with him.

You sound to me like someone who feels stuck with Mormonism, for whatever reason, with no choice but to make the best you can of it. And apparently you are able to bear the burden and carry on by means of a bunch of careful dovetailing maneuvers. If that's how it is, then I'm sorry, and I hope that your hard road is as easy as possible. I'm glad I'm not in your shoes.