What's Worse? Christians, Help Me Please!

[jayleew]

Calling something baseless a reality doesn’t make it real, no matter how many times you make the assertion.

He means that his perception defines reality, just as your perception defines yours. All fantasy is reality if you have the right perception, just as all reality is fantasy if you have another.

We are all subject to the taoist trap, and conditioned to perceive the truth based on the evidence. But truth is subject and exists, but doesn't at the same time: concensus is the only way to make an educated guess on the ultimate reality, or at least what you and I should accept as reality. Someone can take the same piece of evidence and make an equally compelling arguement for or against an issue, depending on their perception. Of course, there is rebuttal, then eventually (I hope) consensus (where reality is)...or a mutual respect and continuing debate. Everything you know was told to you in some fashion by the senses, and you have made a decision on what reality is on your perceived evidence.

I think that is what he meant, I don't think he is trying to speak fantasy enough hoping that it will gain some measure of validity, but what do I know...

So, that's why we continue to spew our dogma. It is our perceived reality that is based on the evidence that our senses has told us, and is no more or less verifiable than your reality that God does not exist. At this point, there is no consensus on the reality of a creator, so there is no truth, only philosophy.

Continue the fight for the truth, whatever it will be! The world will be a happier place once it has decided if God exists. Many wars will be pointless and irrelevant to human existence once God is, or isn't.

 

[Marlin]

Jenyar, Jesus faced the same kinds of slander as you are attempting to do to Joseph Smith's name. His own home town inhabitants wouldn't listen to His message, reasoning, "Isn't this the carpenter's son?" He was accused of being a glutton, a wine-bibber, a blasphemer, a Sabbath-breaker, one who cast out devils through the power of the devil, etc.

Virtually all the prophets who have ever lived have had their names slandered and drug through the mud. Why should we expect a modern-day Prophet to be any different? Joseph Smith was accused of many things, most of them pure bunk. Yes, he did engage in treasure hunting, just like many of his contemporaries. Yes, he was polygamous, but as I understand it, an angel threatened to destroy him if he didn't listen to the command from God to be such. It was God who told him to marry other wives. He didn't want to, but like Jesus, he bowed to the Father's will rather than his own.

I will say it again: Joseph Smith was one of the humblest, most righteous men of all time, certainly the best blood of the 19th century, and one of the most important human beings ever, for the work he did. Bring charges against him, just like the Sanhedrin did to Jesus. That won't change anything except maybe your own judgment. It's people like you who make the Prophets of God look bad. You will be well recompensed for your slander.

 

[Marlin]

I said:
It's people like you who make the Prophets of God look bad. You will be well recompensed for your slander.

And if you think it's not slander unless it's not true, think about this: would you want someone to take your name and just tell all the mistakes you've made, all the faults you have, and all the sins you have committed, to the exclusion of all the good things about you, all your redeeming virtues? This is a form of malicious slander as well. Just because an accusation is true doesn't mean we should judge a person by it without also listing their good qualities. And any serious student of Joseph Smith's life will recognize that there are far more good qualities about the man than there are faults.

 

[(Q)]

He means that his perception defines reality, just as your perception defines yours.

Reality defines reality, not perception.

All fantasy is reality if you have the right perception, just as all reality is fantasy if you have another.

Since perception does not define reality, your statement is moot.

Someone can take the same piece of evidence and make an equally compelling arguement for or against an issue, depending on their perception.

Evidence is agreed upon by those who do not allow perception to define reality.

Everything you know was told to you in some fashion by the senses, and you have made a decision on what reality is on your perceived evidence.

If that were true, I would perceive the Earth to be flat.

So, that's why we continue to spew our dogma. It is our perceived reality that is based on the evidence that our senses has told us, and is no more or less verifiable than your reality that God does not exist.

No, you have allowed perceptions to define reality.

The world will be a happier place once it has decided if God exists. Many wars will be pointless and irrelevant to human existence once God is, or isn't.

Agreed!

 

[Cris]

Jayleew,

Hi.

He means that his perception defines reality, just as your perception defines yours.

But that isn’t true. Reality is independent of perception and is certainly not defined by perception.

All fantasy is reality if you have the right perception, just as all reality is fantasy if you have another.

I think you are confusing belief with reality. It makes more sense if you were to say – all belief is fantasy if you have another belief – see what I mean?

consensus is the only way to make an educated guess on the ultimate reality,

No, that is a logical fallacy. The fact that everyone might agree on something gives no indication whether it is true or not. They could all be equally wrong.

Everything you know was told to you in some fashion by the senses,

Well no, that is false. While base information must be received through the senses our intelligence is capable of making inferences from such data and creating new knowledge that clearly was not received through the senses.

and you have made a decision on what reality is on your perceived evidence.

Not necessarily if I don’t consider the evidence sufficiently strong – I may simply have doubts or suspicions. There is no real need to consider anything real, although life might indeed be troublesome with such an outlook, as is typical of many who are mentally disturbed.

I think that is what he meant, I don't think he is trying to speak fantasy enough hoping that it will gain some measure of validity,

So I disagree. He is simply convinced that what he has been taught is absolutely true and is prepared to allow his emotions to takeover, despite the absence of any meaningful evidence. This is more like a form of self-hypnosis, e.g. when a doctrine is repeated often enough, especially in highly emotionally charged evangelical meetings, then there is a tendency to join in – it is partly explained by the sheep mentality that many cannot resist. Poor ability with critical thinking, and poor education levels or low intelligence generally lead to a high gullibility factor that is common among religious believers.

It is our perceived reality that is based on the evidence that our senses has told us,

Translated that becomes – you believe what you are told. Which if you were in a Christian dominated country you’ll likely accept those doctrines, and you’ll likely be a Muslim in an Islamic country, and likely Hindu if you lived in India. The idea that you have independently reviewed the evidence and come to a rational decision is in the vast majority of cases rank nonsense. Most religious people are simply sheep like and gullible.

and is no more or less verifiable than your reality that God does not exist.

I don’t claim that gods do not exist, although the longevity of the absence of evidence for their support seems somewhat so overwhelming that it would seem foolish not to agree that such things do not exist. But no I am not following what I have been told.

At this point, there is no consensus on the reality of a creator, so there is no truth, only philosophy.

As I said earlier, consensus gives no guarantee either way.

The world will be a happier place once it has decided if God exists.

I doubt that. It would be better if such a thing were proved instead.

 

[Jenyar]

Jenyar, Jesus faced the same kinds of slander as you are attempting to do to Joseph Smith's name. His own home town inhabitants wouldn't listen to His message, reasoning, "Isn't this the carpenter's son?" He was accused of being a glutton, a wine-bibber, a blasphemer, a Sabbath-breaker, one who cast out devils through the power of the devil, etc.

Yes, Jesus was rejected in his hometown; he even said this is characteristic of prophets. With Joseph Smith it seems to have been the other way around.

The information I gave is not slander. Providing a court document where someone has been convincted of fraud, and stating his history, isn't slander. An accusation has to be false and defamatory in order to count as slander. Smith only defamed himself when he made himself guilty of his excesses. I take note of your objection, but the whole problem with the claim of "righteousness" is that "a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough" (Gal. 5:9; 1 Cor. 5:6). Jesus gave the same warning about the hypocrisy of "righteous" men's teachings (Matt. 16:12).

Have you examined the accusations against Jesus recently?

Matt. 11:18-19 For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' But wisdom is proved right by her actions."​

It's clear form the passage that the allegations were irrational. Was John really demon-possessed because he was ascetic? No. Did Jesus sin with the people he ministered to? Obviously not. It's true that Jesus mingled with "sinners" - they were the reason why He came! And making himself equal with God would have been blasphemy if it hadn't been true (proven right by his actions). Yes, he was a sabbath-breaker by the legalistic rules of the Pharisees, but He was greater than the sabbath (John 5:17). And Jesus himself refuted the claim that He drove our demons through the power of the devil.

So I honestly don't know why you think the comparison between Jesus and Joseph Smith should be persuasive. Are you saying the facts about Smith as recorded by his own wife, the Nauvoo Expositor and other contemporaries, are lies?

Virtually all the prophets who have ever lived have had their names slandered and drug through the mud. Why should we expect a modern-day Prophet to be any different? Joseph Smith was accused of many things, most of them pure bunk. Yes, he did engage in treasure hunting, just like many of his contemporaries. Yes, he was polygamous, but as I understand it, an angel threatened to destroy him if he didn't listen to the command from God to be such. It was God who told him to marry other wives. He didn't want to, but like Jesus, he bowed to the Father's will rather than his own.

Like I said, there's a difference between false accusations (slander) and the truth. The fact that Joseph Smith have been slandered by some doesn't change anything to the things he was guilty of. A righteous man does not commit fraud. Jesus didn't. The fact that "everyone did it" should be less reason for a rightoeus man to do something. The court certainly agreed he was doing something illegal.

The practice of polygamy was strongly condemned in the Book of Mormon (Jacob 2:23-24) and Deut. 17:17, which should have been a good guideline for discerning whether any further revelation was from God or someone else (not to mention that it went against "the law of the land"; cf. D&C 58:21). The original version of Doctrine & Covenants denounced it as well (101:4; 1835 edition). So polygamy was practiced in careful secrecy, even though Smith claimed it was specially revealed to him by God so that he could take NK Whitney's daughter as a wife. You may have access to the book In Sacred Loneliness, or you could read a review here. (The author is a faithful LDS, by the way). There is no sign that it went against his will.

In 1830, Joseph Smith admitted that it was possible for him to make false revelations: "Some revelations are of God: some revelations are of man: and some revelations are of the devil" (Comprehensive History of the Church, vol. 1, p. 165). If revelations can't be tested against scripture, it's a recipe for illusion and disaster.

I will say it again: Joseph Smith was one of the humblest, most righteous men of all time, certainly the best blood of the 19th century, and one of the most important human beings ever, for the work he did. Bring charges against him, just like the Sanhedrin did to Jesus. That won't change anything except maybe your own judgment. It's people like you who make the Prophets of God look bad. You will be well recompensed for your slander.

Let God be the judge; stating something confidently does not make it true. It just seem to me that Joseph Smith has been romanticized, gathering from the information that is available about him. In 1838, Smith appointed himself Lieutenant General of the Nauvoo Legion. And when he later established the "Council of Fifty", he let himself be ordained as king (according to the testimony of member George Miller). On top of that, he boasted in writing that he did more than Paul, John, Peter, or Jesus to keep the church together - "no man ever did such a work as I."

Even if he was more humble and righteous while he didn't say or do any of these things, it still disqualifies him as "one of the humblest, most righteous men of all time".

 

[Marlin]

Jenyar, you're a mass of misconceptions. I'm not even going to attempt to untangle that load of huey you just hocked at me. Trust me: when you state only the negative things about a person and exclude the positive things, that constitutes slander, at least in my book.

And by the way, Jesus told his disciples that they would do greater works than He Himself did. That didn't make them better or more important than He. So too, with Joseph Smith.

Also, the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy unless otherwise sanctioned by God.

 

[Jenyar]

Jenyar, you're a mass of misconceptions. I'm not even going to attempt to untangle that load of huey you just hocked at me. Trust me: when you state only the negative things about a person and exclude the positive things, that constitutes slander, at least in my book.

And by the way, Jesus told his disciples that they would do greater works than He Himself did. That didn't make them better or more important than He. So too, with Joseph Smith.

Also, the Book of Mormon condemns polygamy unless otherwise sanctioned by God.

I'm sure he had many redeeming qualities. But he was a man like any of us, and "There is no one righteous, not even one". His monopoly over God's revelations flies in the face of the way God used prophets and Israel in the past. The "truths" he is supposed to have revealed can easily be found through careful study of scripture, but his innovations seem to be as frequently retracted by "new light" as they are confirmed. In the past, God made clear what He was going to do and his revelations could be relied on for centuries.

My point with polygamy was that Smith did not carry the moral authority to contradict existing scripture. When God wanted a temple, He didn't allow David to build it because of his sin, He gave the job to Solomon. The Nauvoo Expositor realized this, but Smith persisted. Now, if one is to take Joseph Smith's revelation at face value, like you do, it looks as if God gave in to political pressure.

 

[Marlin]

About polygamy: The Doctrinal Exclusion: Lesser Arguments

The patriarchs, including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their progeny, were all polygamous. The House of Israel is a polygamous house, like it or not.

 

[Jenyar]

And it was a social institution, like slavery - not a religious one. It required no revelation. In fact, the Book of Mormon says they were indulgences. There is a reason God said it "leads a man's heart astray" in Deut. 17:17, and in that 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6 polygamy disqualified a man from holding church office.

Let's say a prophet receives a revelation that people are to take slaves again, and refers to Israel's laws for protecting slaves and taking them. Would you listen to the prophet, or question his revelation based on Christian morality - like William Wilberforce did?

 

[Marlin]

Jenyar, I would probably disagree with that revelation, but I cannot imagine that the LDS prophets would ever try to institute slavery, so that is a straw man argument at best. But anyway, as I understand it, the Lord had Joseph Smith start being polygamous in order to raise up seed into the Church, to advance the numbers of people who were believers. Can you think of a better way to increase the number of believers than to have as many as possible born "under the covenant" already?

 

[c20H25N3o]

the Lord had Joseph Smith start being polygamous in order to raise up seed into the Church, to advance the numbers of people who were believers. Can you think of a better way to increase the number of believers than to have as many as possible born "under the covenant" already?

I cannot think of a better way to have sex with loads of woman without all that nasty contraceptive business, without judgement, by declaring that the Lord told me to do it.

Its pretty lame.

c20

 

[jayleew]

About polygamy: The Doctrinal Exclusion: Lesser Arguments

The patriarchs, including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their progeny, were all polygamous. The House of Israel is a polygamous house, like it or not.

Oh, so David was excused for having an affair? Abraham's decisions were not counted as righteousness, but only his belief was. All shall be judged in the end...the living and the dead. These men will answer for their actions. So, who is to say whose name is written in the book of life? My point is that polygamy was not God's intention, but was made legal because of the will of man. Many "righteous" men imposed many laws and traditions, but not one of them will do a lick of good to save your soul, and some will do the opposite. Concubinage is a blight and was used for political gain, and the sins of the father passed to the son and grew worse each generation.

 

[jayleew]

Jayleew,
But that isn’t true. Reality is independent of perception and is certainly not defined by perception.

Example:
The sky is purple and everyone else has a defect and perceives the sky is blue. So, what color is the sky?
Reality does depend on your perception.

Example:
A ball is dropped from a moving train and there is a person who observes the action from the train and also outside of the train. In the absence of any resistance (air and the ground) the person in the train says the ball has dropped in a straight line. The person outside the train says the ball dropped in a parabolic fashion. So, how did the ball drop? Remove the outside, and life exists only in the train. How did the ball drop?

Consensus is best for educated guess of reality
No, that is a logical fallacy. The fact that everyone might agree on something gives no indication whether it is true or not. They could all be equally wrong.

Right, but the odds are that consensus produces more accurate results, that is why I said it is an educated guess of reality, not reality. If 90% of the world said, "Lord of the Rings" is a great movie. What are the odds that it is? Not discounting that the 10% could be the accurate perception, but that is why it is just a good guess that it is a good movie.

Everything you know was told to you in some fashion by the senses,
Well no, that is false. While base information must be received through the senses our intelligence is capable of making inferences from such data and creating new knowledge that clearly was not received through the senses.

That is speculatory data, not of real scientific value of proving anything. All knowledge is based on perception by the senses, even speculation is derrived from observation.

and you have made a decision on what reality is on your perceived evidence.
Not necessarily if I don’t consider the evidence sufficiently strong – I may simply have doubts or suspicions. There is no real need to consider anything real, although life might indeed be troublesome with such an outlook, as is typical of many who are mentally disturbed.

You may have doubts, and logically dismiss the evidence until further insight is gained, but with the things you have sufficient evidence there is no reason to not perceive that it is reality. Those are the decisions I am referring to.

So I disagree. He is simply convinced that what he has been taught is absolutely true and is prepared to allow his emotions to takeover, despite the absence of any meaningful evidence. This is more like a form of self-hypnosis, e.g. when a doctrine is repeated often enough, especially in highly emotionally charged evangelical meetings, then there is a tendency to join in – it is partly explained by the sheep mentality that many cannot resist. Poor ability with critical thinking, and poor education levels or low intelligence generally lead to a high gullibility factor that is common among religious believers.
Translated that becomes – you believe what you are told. Which if you were in a Christian dominated country you’ll likely accept those doctrines, and you’ll likely be a Muslim in an Islamic country, and likely Hindu if you lived in India. The idea that you have independently reviewed the evidence and come to a rational decision is in the vast majority of cases rank nonsense. Most religious people are simply sheep like and gullible.

Agreed.

 

[Marlin]

Oh, so David was excused for having an affair?

We're not talking about extra-marital affairs. We're talking about married polygamy, with all parties entering into a binding marital contract.

Abraham's decisions were not counted as righteousness, but only his belief was.

His decisions were not counted as wickedness, either. God said nothing negative about his polygamous relations.

BTW, Mormons don't practice polygamy any more, for those who are wondering. It is considered to be wickedness unless God commands it, and the LDS Church excommunicates those who practice it.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: Jenyar, you believe in a false god. Why do you keep promoting your false god? It's really sad, you know, that you are an intelligent young man who humanizes a lie. There is no Son of God, and there is no God. You try to defraud the LDS, but you are living your own lie! Why can't they?

Again, Jenyar, you are still tap-dancing to your old routine. There is no god, and you have no salvation! Accept it! You're just a liar perpetuating your lie.

 

[Jenyar]

Jenyar, I would probably disagree with that revelation, but I cannot imagine that the LDS prophets would ever try to institute slavery, so that is a straw man argument at best.

The question here is whether you are at liberty to disagree. Many Christians (Mormons included) disagreed with Joseph Smith's revelation with good biblical reason. They 'could not imagine' why LDS prophets would ever try to institute polygamy (and some of the other doctrines they introduced). Since it has happened before, it's a reasonable scenario, and can't be called a strawman argument. The question pertains to a type of situation that is likely to occur with LDS theology, and therefore requires a ready answer.

Sure, LDS prophets don't get as many controversial revelations as they used to in those first decades, but that's hardly reason to expect they might never have any again. Do you know what God has in store for the church? Many sincere Christians trusted scripture and scriptural tradition for centuries (and reformed the church accordingly) before Joseph Smith's vision, and their imaginations were certainly stretched by his and others' revelations. If you give prophets an equal or higher authority than scripture then you might end up not just having to pick your religion but also your God. You might have to choose between FLDS (who still practice polygamy as "patriarchal" or "celestial" marriage) or another LDS denomination - but it will be your belief against a claim of revelation. This was certainly the situation that people who trusted the priesthood authority of President John Taylor (Journal of Discourses 11:221) and Brigham Young (JoD 11:239, 269) found themselves in, when they taught polygamy was a command not to be disobeyed. Joseph Smith himself taught it was essential for salvation ("exaltation" in the context: JoD 20, p.28-31).

But anyway, as I understand it, the Lord had Joseph Smith start being polygamous in order to raise up seed into the Church, to advance the numbers of people who were believers. Can you think of a better way to increase the number of believers than to have as many as possible born "under the covenant" already?

God could raise believers from rocks if He needed numbers. But it seems He wants repentance, not numbers: "I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent" (Luke 15:7).

The only covenant under which anyone, Mormon or not, is promised forgiveness and an eternal inheritance is the one established between Jesus and the entire world, at the cross (Heb. 9:15;28).

 

[water]

*************
M*W: Jenyar, you believe in a false god. Why do you keep promoting your false god? It's really sad, you know, that you are an intelligent young man who humanizes a lie. There is no Son of God, and there is no God. You try to defraud the LDS, but you are living your own lie! Why can't they?

Again, Jenyar, you are still tap-dancing to your old routine. There is no god, and you have no salvation! Accept it! You're just a liar perpetuating your lie.

Love your neighbour today.

 

[Marlin]

The question here is whether you are at liberty to disagree. Many Christians (Mormons included) disagreed with Joseph Smith's revelation with good biblical reason. They 'could not imagine' why LDS prophets would ever try to institute polygamy (and some of the other doctrines they introduced).

I am at liberty to disagree with any doctrine I don't believe in. However, I am to keep such disagreement to myself and not preach against what the leaders of the Church say. Disagreement in private is allowed. And anyway, the most the Church can do to dissenters is excommunicate them. The idea that anyone is not at liberty to disagree smacks of anti-Mormon propaganda, which you have apparently been reading.

Since it has happened before, it's a reasonable scenario, and can't be called a strawman argument.

Uh, nope. The Church would never institute slavery. That is indeed a straw man.

If you give prophets an equal or higher authority than scripture then you might end up not just having to pick your religion but also your God.

Do you know where the scriptures came from, Jenyar? Let me refresh your memory. Moses, Joshua, Samuel, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habbukuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, etc., etc., etc.

These were all prophets. The difference between what these prophets said and what the scriptures say? NO DIFFERENCE! The scriptures came from them through inspiration from God. Can God still speak, or is He now dumb? According to Amos, the Lord will surely do nothing except He reveals it to His servants, the prophets. Ephesians 4:11-14 tells us that we are given prophets and apostles until we all come to the unity of the faith. Has that time come yet? I don't think so, judging from all the thousands of Christian (and non-Christian) denominations.

God could raise believers from rocks if He needed numbers. But it seems He wants repentance, not numbers: "I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who do not need to repent" (Luke 15:7).

In a small, fledgling church, numbers were necessary at first. You need a spark to ignite the tinder. God chose polygamy as His method of "raising believers from the rocks."

The only covenant under which anyone, Mormon or not, is promised forgiveness and an eternal inheritance is the one established between Jesus and the entire world, at the cross (Heb. 9:15;28).

The baptismal covenant is necessary for entrance into the Celestial Kingdom (see John 3:3-5 -- one must be born of water and of the spirit to enter the kingdom of heaven). The one who baptizes must have proper priesthood authority, as we've talked about before, or the baptism is not efficacious. The Lord establishes His covenant through baptism and confirmation.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Love your neighbour today.

*************
M*W: Love yourself today.