My response to Ben:

Ben,

Thanks for the text. At first, I wasn't sure whether to accept it in
silence or to reply. While I like to pick people's brains about their
religions, I rarely do it with people I know. It's often a sensitive
subject for some but you've shown the ability to have these
discussions (for which I thank you again), so I'm (obviously)
replying.

How old is your younger daughter? I think some leeway is in order for
failing to spot the connection between pickles and one's religion. : )

On the the somewhat heavier stuff:

...Read it as closely as it's worth reading. ; )

While I agree that people should strive to do good (leaving for now
what designates an action as good), I don't think that the
Judeo-Christian idea of "Original Sin" accurately describes the human
condition. I can see the doctrine being conceived of in the early days
of Judaism from the thought process of "We are God's chosen people,
but things are pretty rough for us... therefore, we must have done
something horrible... but none of us remember, so it must have been
our ancestors."

If we are "fallen", I think our fall comes from people thinking of
themselves as separate from the rest of nature (look at the
distinction between "natural" and "man-made" ). This concept relates
somewhat to the "knowledge" gained by eating from the tree of
knowledge. I'm not sure which came first, though. Perhaps the idea of
being fallen has led people to view man as separate from nature. If
people took to heart the idea that they were, in fact, part of nature,
part of the (pardon the Lion King reference) Circle of Life, part of
life on this planet, I think that we (as a species) would have some
higher self-esteem overall.

Anyway, back to the analogy, if you're striving for anything,
saturation and immersion is important. Purifying can be seen as the
point in which you reach some milestone... I imagine it as the point
when you stop seeing yourself as a student of X and instead a doer of
X. Sealing could be when you have your first real life test... though
it seems like the purification and sealing (appropriately enough)
could be the same event.

Not to say that your first real-life test of a skill makes one an
expert. You can always soak a little longer if you want to get better.
: )

-Triften

(Maybe it's because I'm copying and pasting, but the formatting is getting a little goofy...)

-Triften

Ben wrote: (And I'm trimming out the quoted sections that he basically ignored.)

>
> I'm going to forge ahead with the discussion then. One thing that irks
> me about our culture is it can turn discussions like this rather
> one-sided. Since it is considered impolite by some to ask about their
> religion, I have often found myself in the position of just having to
> listen and feeling like I wasn't allowed to respond.

I guess religions are personal.  I like the orange juice story that I heard in conference some time ago.  My church actively encourages people to talk about our religion, and the belief is that God won't be very happy with us if we don't --- but people are afraid to talk, for whatever reason.


Here's the story:

If you're enjoying a wonderful glass of orange juice that tastes really good to you, why would you be unwilling to tell your neighbors:

* Where you got it
* How you got it
* How they could get some so they could enjoy it
* Etc.

There are perhaps reasons why you might not want to share, but hopefully, none of those would apply to a religious discussion about how one should consider living their life.


>
> What do you mean by skipping this part of the discussion? Do you mean
> skipping to this part?
>
> As I brought up in some of our discussions last year, I apologize if I
> seem to misrepresent the LDS position on various things, my knowledge
> of Christianity is primarily of well, the "others" (Protestant,
> Catholic, Baptist, etc.)


The church would have us start more slowly, I think, than skipping through some pretty heavy parts of the discussion of why we're here, where we're going, etc --- and it just feels odd to me to be skipping so quickly through this.  On the other hand, I think it's what you asked, I know where we stand, and I'm happy to share. It just felt odd to be moving so quickly through this space.  I've never done that before --- not that I can't --- and just thought i worth mentioning as I skipped through LDS doctrine (so lightly).

I don't think you've misrepresented anything.  I just haven't had a chance to talk about it all (that takes a while...), and I'm looking for an appropriate, effective, and useful way to have that exchange take place.

>
> (Semi-Sidetrack: What's the LDS stance on Rapture/Judgement Day?
> Imminent or some point off way in the future. You've made reference as
> if it is off into eternity when we were discussing the ping-pong ball
> problem.)

It's coming soon --- whatever that means.  When Joseph Smith asked that question in the 1840's, the answer was "it will be by 1880 if you're still around...", and he wasn't and it didn't come then.  No man knows the time or date --- sooner is probably a better guess than later. God has a somewhat  different view of time than we do --- but we've been promised that the church will NOT be taken from the earth again till the rapture comes, and it's only been here since 1830.  It sounds like a curious time --- I'd just as soon be dead and watch it from the other side (I say quite gibly.)


> (Plus, I can imagine that it can be easier to "attend" via radio for many.)

My mom's point was that it was easier to attend live after the radio happened too, because the sessions started being 'merely' two hours at a pop, rather than all weekend events where people talked non stop.


> Have you attended in person? I imagine it being quite an event.

Mostly, I just listen on the radio.  I've taken to listening to the conference talks over and over --- maybe 3 times --- so 30 -40 hours of listening spread out over 6 months...

> (Sounds like a violation of the first amendment, if they have to
> register for official recognition. By the way, I'm a big fan of the
> Constitution.)

How do you establish a formal church, after God has told you to, with the government?  Apparently the laws of New York said if you want to incorporate, you have to do it that way. And so they did.  I don't think they minded --- it was, I'm sure, a heady experience, and they wanted to be known as Gods church in the land, so they incorporated, or established the church, or ... . I'm not sure I see the challenge --- you can explain if you'd like.


> Will he be talking to others? If not, why not? If so, how will the
> authentic be distinguished from the fakes?

He talks to me, and he can and will and wants to talk to you.  When it happens, you'll know, and it will change your life.  (Slowly, perhaps, or maybe fast -- it depends is the best I can say.)

The standard reference is the Book of Mormon.  Its just new, not all that different, than the bible.  As you come to understand that the Nephites, living in America, were talking to the same God the Jews in Jerusalem were talking to, and he was telling them both similar stories (okay, so they didn't always do as well as they might, in both cases...), it becomes more important to hear what He wants us to do today.

The most common theme in the scriptures, I'm told, is the command to "knock, ask & seek", and God tells us that he will, and does, answer.

We have answers in our generation that the prophets of old sought.  Sometimes it takes a while for God to share.  Sometimes it doesn't.  Life just works like that --- and sometimes, you don't get to know the answer till you plant the ideas in your life, live them for a while, and then discover if the idea was a good one, or not.


The point of life is to live by faith --- a belief in what we can not, and will not be able to, see.  In our previous life, with God, we could see everything, we saw that it was good, and we came here to learn to live by faith.  After this life, depending on how we do here, we'll go back and continue 'being' forever.  If we have done well, we'll be happier than if we haven't.

> I'm curious: Do we get ideas of our own? How does one tell the
> difference between an idea of their own and an idea from God?

I don't think we can always tell.  There is a story in the Book of Mormon of the Lamanites being overcome with the power of God, and not recognizing his power.  God didn't seem offended by it --- they just didn't know.

Adam was once offering sacrafice because he had been told too.  An angel came and explained why it was happening, and what he was doing.  It made it more significant to Adam, and God apparently thought that was important for Adam, or He wouldn't have sent an Angel to explain it to Adam.  We don't always know --- but if we're talking with God, we CAN know what's important.  (Gods' view of important may not line up as nicely as we'd like with our own concept, but that we think it to be important will be part of God's decision as to what to share with us.)


> Thanks again for having this discussion with me.

It is, indeed, my pleasure.

(At this point, I don't reply... since, I feel that he hasn't really given me too much of a reply.)

 

So now we've hit some meat and potatoes:

This one I find disagreement with right at the start.

My first issue is that I think that behaving as if something is true
without evidence (aka having religious faith), particularly about
things which are unverifiable, is no virtue. That which can justify
anything, can't be used to justify anything. Follow? Our culture gives
free ride to anyone saying pretty much anything if they preface it
with something akin to "God tells me in my heart that..." Yes, it can
be used to believe that God is love and all mankind should be treated
with kindness and respect (there are also plenty of other reasons to
treat fellow man kindly, by the way) but it can also be used to
justify inquisitions, wars, and witch hunts. Faith can indeed move
mountains, but it can also level skyscrapers. Friedrich Nietzche is
quoted as saying "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than
lies." You see, when someone _thinks_ something is true that isn't,
they can be reasoned with. One the other hand, if someone _believes_
something is true and they have decided it to be true without evidence
or even in the face of evidence to the contrary, they cannot be
reasoned with. This is considered by many to be a virtue. (But only
about certain things that enough people think is okay. Straying from
these things can land one in a small padded room.)

(I think I had a second issue, but I can't recall it at the moment and
need to get moving. I may reread the Testimony talk and compose more
later.)

Is fasting and praying the standard method of receiving revelation in
the LDS church?

Also, when you receive revelation, how do you know it is from God?

Thank you again for continuing this discussion with me.

--Triften

 

Here's where I really think I can get him to think:


> By how it turns out.  God doesn't do evil, so some of the things you suggest
> wouldn't happen.

So what events of the Old Testament does the LDS church take as actual
events and what is believed to be a corruption of the word of God?

Did God really tell Abraham to sacrifice his son? Or was that the
devil and God was the one who told him to stop?

Did God harden the Pharaoh's heart causing him to not release the Jews
bringing down the slaughter of the firstborns?

Did God command Joshua to commit genocide?

If God did, in fact, command these actions, does that make them
automatically good?

The problem is that people do bad things in the name of God on a
regular basis. If one is using God's commands as a yardstick for doing
good, then one is stuck in a bit of a loop: If God's commands show
what is good, then how does one know if one is hearing from God? If
one knows God is commanding when the results are good, then how does
one judge good?

Why did the LDS Church not admit black people until 1978? Why is it
that God didn't get around to telling the leadership of the church
that people with dark skin were human beings too until well after the
civil rights movement? (I'm guessing you'll chalk it up to the
fallibility of people. If so, this puts one in a similar circle as
before.)

> If you'll read through the first few sections of the
> Doctrine & Covenants, you'll see that 'from the start', there were people
> that thought they knew as much as Joseph Smith about getting revelation as
> Joseph Smith did --- it's just that they happened to be wrong.  I think it
> was Hyrum Page that had issues --- but he figured it out, repented, and I
> think went on to be a great leader in the early church.  Satan is real, and
> has real power --- he just won't ever have a body because he didn't choose
> to go that way in our previous existence (along with a third of the hosts of
> heaven).

There's a saying that "the greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was
convincing the world he didn't exist." (Baudelaire, Jim Carroll had a
similar quote) but I think that the greatest trick the Devil could
pull (if he did exist) would be to make people think that his voice
was that of God.

> I like the following from Alma 32:
>
>   28 Now, we will compare the word unto a aseed. Now, if ye give place, that
> a bseed may be planted in your cheart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a
> good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your dunbelief, that ye will resist
> the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts;
> and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within
> yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is
> good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to eenlighten
> my funderstanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.

Yes, in order to believe, I need to start believing. This can be said
about any belief.

> Its' part of a longer discourse by Alma talking to unbelievers about how to
> become believers, and I think you'll find the whole chapter useful.

Useful?

Have you ever read Nietzsche? http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1998

> I'd send you there on the web --- but let me just send that particular chapter
> and tell you that "alma" is the 9-th book in the Book of Mormon, which is
> part of the gospel library to be found at www.lds.org.  I think your concern
> is that we'll be proving, before long, that Winston Churchill is a carrot,
> which he is not, and how can you disambiguate the two?

Proving that Winston Churchill is a carrot requires proving that 1 =
0, the proof of which involves an invalid step. If you start with
correct information but make invalid reasonings, you will likely
arrive at invalid conclusions. If you start with faulty information
and take valid steps, you will also likely end up with invalid
conclusions.

> The point of the article is NOT that the scientific methods don't work ---
> of course they do.  But they're not 'standalone methods' either --- we can
> know of things via other methodologies, and just because it's not
> 'scientific' does not mean it's either untrue or unscientific.

The article is incorrect. There is no evidence that there are methods
for gaining knowledge other than examining evidence in a
reproduce-able manner.

No, the only way to know something is through proof. If I act as if
something is true without knowledge of it and behave as if it is true,
and it turns out to be true, that does not mean that I _knew_ it was
true. It means that I guessed that it was true.

The claim that revelation leads to knowledge can be disproven with
reductio ad absurdum. As I said before, if you think that "God told me
to" is sufficient reason for a persons actions, then you better stick
to that, because you have no way of arguing with it. You can sure try
your own claims of "God told me to", but, since there is no way of
actually proving that you heard it from God, the argument becomes
something like "Is not" "Is too" "Is not." By opening the door for
these claims you leave yourself without a foot to stand on when trying
to rebut conflicting claims.

> I work with a doctor who uses methods that other doctors don't always agree
> with --- he has his methodology that he's honed over the years, and it works
> well for him.  When I make him back up and 'prove' his ideas to other
> doctors, he can --- but it's more work, so I get to pay for the extra
> testing that makes the methodology more appealing to those with a different
> background.  Still, with all the extra work, no one would ever do it that
> way.  At the end of the day, if the process leads you to be happier and more
> productive, wouldn't the scientific method say 'that's appropriate?'  Or is
> the scientific method devoid of feelings entirely and useless with respect
> to human emotions? (I don't think social scientists believe that to be
> true.)

I'm going to call a non sequitur on this one. What does his
methodology have to do with the claim that the scientific method being
devoid of feelings? I'll try to answer the best I can.

His method may be perceived as unorthodox, but he's applying his
knowledge of what diseases are prevalent based on the symptoms he
observes. Or he's guessing. This doesn't make his method magical. If
you were trying to compare his method to revelation, I'm going to tack
on a false analogy. His use of his knowledge of diseases is not
equivalent to someone making unfalsifiable claims involving zero
evidence.

Are you trying to claim that only people claiming to have experienced
something as proof that it happens? Are you aware of apophenia? It's
the phenomenon of seeing patterns and stimuli. Basically, as a
survival trait, we are ready to see things where there are none and
people can and do, more often than they might think, hallucinate. As a
survival trait, it works because, if someone sees a tiger hiding in
the woods and runs when there isn't actually a tiger, they have wasted
only some of their time and energy, not their life. On the other hand,
if they don't see the tiger hiding, they could be killed. Basically,
the penalty for false negatives is much higher than the penalty for
false positives.

Have you ever observed the blind spots on your retinas? Where the
optic nerve meets the retinas, you can't actually see. Close one eye
and try to find it. You probably won't spot it right away, if at all.
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/cuius/idle/percept/blindspot.htm
has some diagrams to help. You don't notice them because your brain
fills in the blanks. It does things like this all the time.

-Triften

 

Joseph Smith may have also drawn some ire for starting a bank without
a charter and conning people out of their money by claiming to be able
to find treasure using "Seeing stones".

> I'm not sure I can answer the other questions and positions you raise.  The
> church is true because it's true,

(Tautology.)

> and I think you could measure that, if you
> propose to do so, by looking at ho wit's lifted the lives of those
> who believe in its tenets. On the whole, those people seem to do well, and
> live fuller lives than they would otherwise have lived.

How do you know that their lives would not have been as full?

Can this be said of any belief? If it leads to a "fuller" life, then
it was okay?

> You get to choose
> --- but the fundamental issue is "Was Joseph Smith who he said he was --- a
> prophet called of God to restore His word to a corrupt and fallen world, or
> a misguided man who was doing something else?"

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Conflicting
reports from some of Smith's close relatives is insufficient evidence.
A book of divine revelation (supposedly the full gospel from God) that
gets updated or ignored as it suits the church is insufficient
evidence of guidance from God.

That's sort of a false dichotomy. Your question should be "Was he a
prophet of God, or not?"

> The persecutions of Joseph
> Smith started when he found the gold plates (people believed that they could
> make good money by selling them --- and spent a lot of energy trying to get
> them from Joseph.

Actually his "persecution" started with him being a con-man of
conflicting stories. Also, starting a bank without a charter and
circulating counterfeit notes. Church leaders claiming that dissenters
should be trampled underfoot can make people view a church with some
distaste.

This gets back to my problem with "faith". When two religions clash,
neither can make a cogent arguments for what it claims to be true.
This leaves the two groups with little option other than violence and
oppression.

> They apparently believed that he had them (and, by the
> by, I believe they were right).  Joseph and his family believed that the
> persecutions would end when he gave the plates back to Moroni.  For Joseph,
> however, the persecutions ended with his death at the hands of a mob (with
> Governor Fords' complicity (tacit support)) in the 1840's.

The Governor gave his tacit support by arresting Smith for censoring a
newspaper?

> In Joseph Smith's words:
> 24 However, it was nevertheless a fact that I had beheld a avision. I have
> thought since, that I felt much like Paul, when he made his defense before
> King Agrippa, and related the account of the vision he had when he saw a
> light, and heard a voice; but still there were but few who believed him;
> some said he was dishonest, others said he was bmad; and he was ridiculed
> and reviled. But all this did not destroy the reality of his vision. He had
> seen a vision, he knew he had, and all the cpersecution under heaven could
> not make it otherwise; and though they should persecute him unto death, yet
> he knew, and would know to his latest breath, that he had both seen a light
> and heard a voice speaking unto him, and all the world could not make him
> think or believe otherwise.
>
> If Joseph Smith believed that he had talked to God, and had 'proofs' that he
> had, then he wouldn't have been true to himself if he had denied it.  He was
> in a tough spot --- especially when people seemed to believe that he should
> just say "oh, that didn't really happen..." and move on.

False dichotomy. The two options aren't "believe it happened" or
"ignore it and move on." One could examine the experience and figure
out what it says about themself.

When we hallucinate (even little hallucinations like covering up a
blind spot), the brain fills in with what it already knows. That's why
when people have "revelations" they almost always seem to have visions
involving their culture's religious icons. We've learned much about
how our minds do such things.

>
> The first black man to receive the priesthood in our generation was in
> Navooh in the 1840's.  Racism is currently alive and well in the LDS church,
> thank you very much

Alright, that I'll give you. There are records of black people being
admitted into the Church in its early days.

Though, I'm fairly certain that a story about how God cursed evil
people with dark skin surely doesn't help the situation.

And, sadly, racism is alive and well all over the place.

> --- God doesn't require perfect people to join, he lets
> normal people join, and THEN we start (or continue) with the process of
> becoming perfect.

Again, the claim that if it works, it was God, if it didn't it was
because of man's imperfection. It's a perfect out. God gets to bask in
all the success and none of the mistakes.

> When there was a strong backlash against that man holding
> the priesthood, Joseph Smith asked him to not exercise his priesthood then
> --- and was killed by a mob before he had a chance to get back to it.

Why did Smith ask him to not exercise his priesthood? How could he
have this vision, true and remain trueto himself by denying that he
had ordained that man?

> In Mormon Doctrine, McConkie (I think that's who wrote it) said that the
> black people wouldn't get the chance to hold the priesthood till
> the millennial reign --- and that was his personally held belief.

But as a leader of the church, he wasn't speaking for the church?

> Spencer Kimball, a president of the church that was especially interested in
> missionary work, came to realize that we as a church could not fulfill our
> mission to spread the gospel to all lands if we couldn't give the priesthood
> to our black brethren.  They --- the first presidency and the 12 apostles,
> prayed in the temple, and found that the time had, indeed, arrived for
> blacks to be ordained to the priesthood if they were worthy (through the
> standard process used to determine worthiness.)  Yes, that was in 1978 ---
> and yes, it was a shock to lots of people --- but  it was also a welcome
> change.

And my point was that it took people having ideas, not guidance from
God to change it. If God were guiding the church, why did he wait
until they "asked" him in 1978? Why didn't the leadership all get the
idea some years previously?

My point is that churches, all churches, change as people change. Many
claim to be the true church and have access to the inviolate "Truth of
God" and yet will change doctrines and alter texts as needed to
maintain membership.

> I heard a black & white couple talk about that experience in a meeting one
> time --- and she (the black woman) said something that I found interesting.
>  Yes, the blacks had been challenged by that belief --- there were still
> some who joined prior to being given the priesthood --- and I think it was
> the Genesis branch in Salt Lake, among other issues, that brought the issue
> to the mind of the prophet at the time (Spencer Kimball).  But it was also a
> trial of the white members of the church --- that had a mission (and have a
> mission) to take the gospel to all people --- and the church can not be self
> sustaining in large swaths of the world if you can't 'grow your own
> leadership out of the stock of people present'.  We rely on the Lord to
> provide the leadership necessary to lead his church, and we need a
> functioning priesthood to make that system grow --- and when you can't
> ordain any of the men who you do convince to join the church, it's really a
> great handicap.

Yes, reasonable. Again, if God were providing guidance, he might have
foreseen this issue coming up and insist that they open their
membership beforehand. Instead, people noticed the issue and decided
the best thing would be to change the policy.

> In the 1980's, I was able to hear a black sister missionary talk about her
> experiences serving as a missionary for the LDS church in Georgia.  The
> question of racism came up --- and as near as I can remember her answer, it
> was:
> Yes, racism is alive and well in the south.  There were some wards she
> served in that she was as welcome in the ward as any other person would have
> been --- there were  some where, had she NOT had a badge that said "sister
> missionary", she would NOT have been welcome there --- but since the church
> had sent her, and she was a missionary, the local membership would (almost)
> let her in.

Oof. Getting turned away from your own church. That's harsh. Racism
seems like a really tough nut to crack. I value free speech above just
about anything else so I'm not about to claim that people should be
punished by the state for being racist. Ideally, they'll be punished
socially for being ignorant, but when you have whole neighborhoods,
towns, counties, and potentially states, where everyone thinks that
way, that's not likely to happen.

Plus, even if the outward behavior changes, it seems as if many people
still carry the prejudices and so the racist just becomes less overt.

> We are given our free agency.  It is more important for God for you to have
> that than anything else, as near as I can tell.
> God does things I don't get --- I don't think Satan told Abraham to
> sacrifice Isaac --- I think God did, and I don't know why.

So if God told someone to sacrifice their children, they should do it?

> It's at least interesting to me that the swear words I hear
> typically denigrate God, not Satan.

I would chalk that up to swear words being for shock value. Sex
carries many taboos, so some references to sex becomes swears.
Blasphemy is considered a crime of some sort, so it adds to the
repertoire of swear words. If you look at swear words by culture, the
categories are based off the taboos of the culture.

>> Did God harden the Pharaoh's heart causing him to not release the Jews
>> bringing down the slaughter of the firstborns?
> Ah --- an easy one.  God did NOT harden Pharaoh's heart --- Pharaoh did that
> all by himself, and God let him.  It's part of the free agency issue.

So Exodus 11:10 is miswritten?
"And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh: and he LORD
hardened Pharaoh's heart, so that he would not let the children of
Israel go out of his land."
Every translation I could find seems to point to that being an
accurate translation of the original Hebrew.

And now we land on the same issue that I was discussing with Mark over
a year ago. Does God know everything that I will do? If so, how can he
provide any sort of free will? As long as an omniscient, omnipotent
creator of the world is in the picture, free will cannot exist.

> My church is not populated by perfect men & women --- it's populated with
> men and women that want to be perfect.  We are not working toward that goal
> with equal zeal all the time --- and we don't all value the same things in
> that search for perfection.  The 'easy' answer is to ask people to read the
> book of Mormon, ask them to apply Moroni's promise in Moroni 10:3-5:
>   3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it
> be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how
> amerciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of
> Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and
> bponder it in your chearts.
>   4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would
> aask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not
> btrue; and if ye shall ask with a csincere heart, with dreal intent, having
> efaith in Christ, he will fmanifest the gtruth of it unto you, by the power
> of the Holy Ghost.
>   5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may aknow the btruth of all
> things.
>
> That's not new doctrine --- it's a repeat of what Joseph Smith found in
> James:
>   5 aIf any of you lack bwisdom, let him ask of God, that cgiveth to all men
> liberally, and dupbraideth not; and it shall be given him.
>   6 But let him aask in bfaith, nothing cwavering. For he that wavereth is
> like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
> And, I hear, but haven't proven to myself, that it is the most often
> repeated (and perhaps ignored) guidance from the scriptures --- that we
> should ask, study, pray --- and we WILL be shown the truth.  (We shall know
> the truth, and the truth shall set us free....)

Again, this is saying that if I believe, then I will believe.

Would you be willing to take some time to disbelieve? To make
decisions of your own accord with[out] presuming that you are guided in
anyway by an omniscient being? To consider that forgiveness comes from
your friends, your family, and, most importantly, from yourself? To
see good and evil as not being from God and Satan, but produced by the
acts of humankind?

Please, when you read the Book of Mormon, D&C, Perl of Great Price,
keep your eyes peeled. http://packham.n4m.org/bomvslds.htm

Thanks,
Triften

 

Ben's reply, my snarky comments in italics:

Let's see.  I'm not going to get through all of your responses at the moment.
An easy one:
Exodus 11:10 was retranslated by Joseph Smith to read:
JST Ex. 11: 10 And Pharaoh hardened his heart . . .

(Yeah, the Mormons think that since the Bible has been corrupted, they get to rewrite anything they like at any time.)

And yes, the Kirtland bank failed.  Did you realize that the economic trials of 1810 lead to the religious revival that led Joseph Smith to find God?

(There is no evidence that such a revival actually occurred. It may have been economic trials from J. Smith being a con man.)

The seer stones:  Ah --- you've been reading.  That's probably good --- I don't constrain how God talks to me, or what I allow HIm to do --- if it worked, I suppose that's the main point.  If the church were not working, then it wouldn't be growing --- but that's a poor measure of how the church grows as well.
The Book of Mormon had ~ 2,000 changes made to it in 1980 when they republished it.  Matter of fact, if you ever see a comma, period, or other punctuation mark, that was also 'added after the fact'.  Apparently the statement that the scribe was a 'teacher' didn't mean he could read and write 'well', just better than some others who had different professions.

I believe the Book of Mormon to have the fullness of the gospel of Jesus Christ written in it's pages.  I believe that you, too, would believe that if you read it and prayed.  I don't think you're there yet, and I'm not sure what to say or do to help you get there.  If it were easy, you'd have already done it.
A friend of mine once said that revelation was (and is) great --- but yesterday's revelations are never enough for today's challenges.  The Book of Mormon shows that people then did and could receive God's will for them.  It didn't always turn out 'great' from the perspective of those who believed -- they burned Abinadi, they ran Samuel the Lamanite out of town, they did their level best to get Nephi killed for telling them that their chief leader had just been killed by his brother (okay, it unrolls a little bit differently in the story told there --- I think it's in the book of Helaman).

I don't think you can 'prove' religion the same way we 'prove' that science is right --- maybe that's good --- the ether theories of the 1900's aren't with us any more because they were (apparently) wrong.

My church is NOT perfect --- we're just trying to be.  And we'd like you to join with us in our quest.  It will be hard, but will be worth it in the end.  The short story:
You lived with God before you lived here, as his son. You could see everything, and liked what you saw.  You, and I, shouted for joy when we heard that we were going to be allowed to come here.  (yes, sometimes I wonder WHAT I could have been thinking then --- but I'm sure I saw clearly then, and don't do so now.)  We were, and are, excited to be about God's work of saving His sons and daughters.  We call ourselves that because THAT is what we are.  He caused this earth to be created for us, and we will be held responsible for how we treat both it, and our fellow humans (and animals).
As for sacrificing sons (or daughters), the death of Christ ended the sacrifice of human (& other animate objects).  The only thing we are now allowed to give God, and the only thing that is, indeed, ours to give is a humble heart and a contrite spirit.  Everything else, really, belongs to Him.  He has given it to us for our stewardship, and He WILL hold us responsible for how we use it.

I spoke briefly with the missionaries about where to go with your questions --- they recommended "Preach my Gospel", and there are some simple lessons in there that it really makes sense to start with first.  It has general guidance on the simple things to talk about --- Seer stones exist, the bank failure existed --- and Joseph Smith knew when he went to Carthage at the Governor's request that he wouldn't be coming home.    Be careful who you marry --- Emma thought he ought to go, and so he did.  The Joseph Smith Translation was held up for years because of copy-write issues with Emma.  Yah gotta love family fights.  They kicked all of the 'mormons' out of Navooh when Joseph died --- and that did NOT include Emma.  That just seems odd to me.
Yes --- the Kirtland bank failed.  Have you ever talked with the missionaries?  If I were running a first rate church, I'm not sure that's who I would choose to send out to preach for me.  And yet, the church does, and I learned lots of things as a missionary --- mostly, I learned that the church was serious, that they were right, and I learned that the church was true.  Had I been paying attention, I could have known that before I left.  I should have --- the bar has been raised, and I hope my own daughters are better prepared to serve than I was.  And I don't know if they'll go or not --- they'll have to make that decision on their own.


I'm not sure where you want to take this discussion.  I don't know if you believe in God --- I believe you're agnostic --- and I don't know what you'd like to learn about it.  Joseph Smith, who saw into heaven, said that five minutes of that was worth a lifetime of study.  And you don't always know what you know --- I was once talking with a nice lady about God, and she asked me how I knew God to be a man.  That one was easy --- because Joseph Smith saw God, and told us what He said.  I can understand, given where the world is going, that she might have reason to be confused --- and no, I don't know the name of God's wife --- or wives.  But I know where kids come from, and you really can't do it alone.
That's why I go to church.  And I feel bad for Moroni when I read through 'what life was like for him as a youth, before the destruction of his people (in Mormon --- like chapters 7-10).  But I don't hear you asking about the 'simple things of the kingdom', and I'm not sure I can answer 'those other questions'.  Sometimes, some places, maybe --- but questions are often easier to ask than answer.
Early mormons didn't make very good neighbors, apparently. They tended to go from refugees that everyone cared for to people that everyone wanted to make a refugee.  And as they were leaving the United States, they were asked to help with the Mexican American war.  It's probably a good thing --- they also discovered Gold in California, and it saved LOTS of lives in Utah (because the business men didn't understand how hard it was to get to California.).  And yes, there was a mountain meadow massacre --- can you imagine trying to defend yourself from the 'might' of the United States army?  I think it was wrong --- did I say my church is far from perfect --- we don't have a sign on the door saying 'perfect people only' --- we have a welcoming sign for all of those that are seeking to be better.
To the point that I can help with that process, I'm game.  To the point that it's headed somewhere else, I'm not sure I have the energy --- but you, and your wife, and your  kids, and your extended family, are worth it to me.  God tells me I should care --- I was surprised recently to learn that He's ALWAYS thought that way --- that the watchmen are responsible if they don't share with others what they know.  It's NOT new with Joseph Smith --- the only thing 'new' is that the Gospel is being restored, again, to a pretty wretched world.  God thinks WE are worth it.  Go figure.

And I'm not sure I've answered ANY of your questions --- and probably opened up several new lines of attack, if that's what it is --- but at the end of the day, the church, really, is true.  Joseph Smith saw God, and it made a difference in his life.  He got to spend half of the rest of his life locked up in Jail for things he didn't do --- and then he died for it.  I'm glad that I don't expect to have to be abused the same way....

Ben.
 
 

The last e-mail from Ben, which I'm not going to respond to. I'm done with this "conversation".

> So, he retranslated it from Hebrew? Or did he just rewrite it claiming
> that God told him that the updated version was correct?

A verifiable claim, if you believe you, too, can talk with God.

> Have you read all the (different) versions of the First Vision by Joseph Smith?

No.  I've always thought they were all pretty much self similar.  I had always wondered why we had the 1838 version --- apparently the chief historian of the church, who had the materials, appostaticed in 1838 with the Kirtland Bank failure and took all of the materials he had with him when he left.  I didn't realize they were available once again.


> If "working" is measured by number of people who are part of a church,
> that is no measure of the validity of a churches claims. It can be a
> measure of how prosperous the people of a church are or how skilled
> they are at convincing others.

Agreed.  But it's still fascinating to me that of all of the sects that broke of the church of Jesus Christ that Joseph Smith founded, that only one of them seems to be growing today.

> Not just punctuation updates, but actual alterations of text have
> occurred. If updates are on-going, how can you claim to have the true
> word of God at any point in time?

My dad is somewhat more concerned about some of those changes than I am.  I once had a Jehovah Witness family 'walk me through' their proof that Jehovah is God from the Book of Mormon scriptures.  I didn't realize before then how muddy some of the Book of Mormon was.  I hope they've cleaned that up --- but probably not.  The Book of Mormon doesn't actually claim to be perfect --- just their writings of their dealings with God, who they claim to have been just.  That has been my own experience, by the way.

> Again, I'd believe if I'd believe. Do you see how what your saying can
> be said about anything?
>
> I think that life is better lived with skepticism and I think that
> you, too, would think this, if you could set aside your beliefs and
> think. If it were easy, you'd have already done it.

Skepticism is fine --- but I find that a belief in God actually helps me to do better.  And I think you, too, would find that a correct belief in a loving family external to this world would help you to do better as well.

It's fascinating to me that the last two versus of our Old Testament come up over and over again in Joseph Smith's writings --- and that the sealing power of the temple, the ability Christ gave the apostles at his time to seal on earth and in heaven --- and to help people find the happiness that CAN come through marriage and having children --- drove a lot of the early activity of the church.  The end result of the church is to have the families that have lived in this world live on forever --- and that's hard to do if you can't even get along with the families you've got now.

> Because they are unfalsifiable statements and, as such, deserve little
> attention, in my opinion.
>
> It's not good to hold onto unprovable things as being true. Take a
> look at the pain and misery throughout history and different groups
> claiming to have "the Truth" have produced.

There's 'the truth', and then 'the truth' that is used to destroy people.  Light flows from God, we should be willing to absorb that light and share it with our friends.


> Now you are making positive claims and I ask you to prove it. Prove
> that I lived with God before I lived here. Just saying that the Book
> of Mormon says so and was given to Joseph Smith by God pushes us back
> just one step to which I ask you to prove it.
>
> If you can prove it with real evidence, I will take your claims as
> true. Otherwise, I will behave as if our beautiful world was the
> product of amazing natural forces and this is the only life we are
> given, so we'd best make the most of it. To me, this means living,
> learning, and growing in such a way that reduces the amount of
> needless pain and suffering while increasing the amount of joy and
> happiness in the world, so that our children will be stronger,
> smarter, and happier than us.

I can't prove it.  You'll have to do it for yourself.  I can tell you what's right, you get to decide if I'm right or not, and then you get to take it to God and ask Him if I'm right or not.  I can, perhaps, help with that process.  It doesn't sound like I'm being very effective, does it?

> But revelation continues, right? What if God alters that rule and
> starts asking for sacrifice again?

Well --- the Nephites at the time of Christ had trouble with ending the law of Moses.

The law of Sacrifice, by the way, has not been revoked.  If you won't sacrifice all that you have, all that you can become, you will not be able to become like God, and you won't make it.  God just asks now for a broken heart and a contrite spirit --- and you're willingness to work with Him.  He helps --- but in the end, you have to do, not Him.  He already has.


> It's not meant to be an attack, I'm pointing out reasons for not
> taking the claims you've presented as true. It seems that you are
> going to take them as true regardless of the evidence presented to the
> contrary.
>
> If this is not going to be an actual discussion, then perhaps we
> should shelve it. I feel as though you aren't listening to anything I
> am saying.
>
> -Triften

So, what evidence have you presented that I wasn't aware of before we started this discussion?

How do you resolve the problem of not being perfect?  I do it through the atonement of Christ, after all we can do, not before.  The church does not go through the book of Mormon and change it 'willy nilly'.  It really is true --- it really was written between 600 bc & 400 ad (plus the excursion to the tower of babel in Ether).  And you can know that, if you've prayed, and were prepared to receive an answer.  If you haven't received your answer, I'd encourage you to keep trying.  Joseph Smith was, and is, a great guy --- but I don't believe he wrote the Book of Mormon (he translated it...) any more than I believe the Devil caused the earth to be.  It happened the way Joseph Smith told me it happened --- Moroni showed up, told him where the plates were, and he translated them.  I believe that by Oscomb's razor --- any other theory is just too elaborate for me to accept.

(Evidentially, to Ben "Joe Smith was a con-man" is less believable than "Joe Smith talked to God.&quot

Shelving the discussion may be the right way to go --- yes, I believe, and that is because I believe God has shown me that He is there.  I'd be glad to help you find that peace as well --- but asking me to be a skeptic and thus be 'better' is just not a place I'm prepared to go.  Why would I turn my back on my God that has helped me so much?  I've had earthly fathers (one), and he's a good guy --- occasionally a little off, but basically a good guy.  My heavenly father is a better guy.  And I don't know how to talk about my bishop --- he really works hard to make sure the church works for those he works with.  Just because.  I don't know that you'd see that if you met him --- but I've seen him get inspiration for the ward, and while I appreciate your efforts to remain 'above all of that', it's just wrong.  Christ said he would return --- or maybe it was just the Angels when he left in the first part of Acts --- and he did, and will.  You can wait for that day, or be more prepared for it, or less so.  It will be great to those who are prepared, and awful for those who are not.  Hence, the great and terrible day of the Lord, and it is coming.  We have work to do to prepare for that day --- but you can't even start some of it till you're a member in good standing.  God will 'wait' for that day --- but are you really willing to take the risk of ....

I need to be off.  Sorry.

Ben.

(And he tops it all off with Pascal's Wager! What a work of art. Early in our off-line discussion, I brought up the "Worship me or suffer because I love you" aspect of Christianity. He thought that was a bizarre presentation then, and now he brings up the threat of hell/judgement day/whatever. -Triften)




 

I try not to reason with religious folks, I still talk about the silliness of their beliefs, but I always will remember my best friend when he became a born again chrisitan, about a year after he was trying to convince me to join his religion, I told him I wouldn't because I am an atheist and have been my entire life, and until he can prove to me the existence of his god (which he tried with very very tired reasoning, look around you, how did it all come about, the bible is truthful blah blah blah). After 8 hours one night of discussions I explained to him in a very rational and respectful way why I didn't believe in god or any gods......8 HOURS LATER his entire argument ended with his statement of WHY DON'T YOU JUST TRY TO BELIEVE IN JESUS!! ( He was quite exhausted at this point trying to convince me), to which I replied why don't you try to believe in Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma, or Buddha, or any other amount of gods or deities, and left him at that. Needless to say he stopped talking to me altogether.....and then tried to convince my wife to join his religion....which didn't go over well.

I think I need to take Hamby's lead and not debate theists to change their minds, but to do it for the audience. This run had no audience.

-Triften

except for the fact in the Mormon church, free thought and not following orders are grounds for excommunication, that includes even seeming to look confused by a tenant of Mormonism.