LDS II: The Mormons

[skyrider44]

You repeatedly asked us how the Church of LDS has had a negative impact on the posters here. Wasn't your position that the Church has had no intentional negative impact (i.e. in NO case) or did you already know of some of these intentional negative impacts and were only asking us if we knew of them and if they affected us? It certainly appeared to me that you implying that ALL actions of the Church had no intended negative consequences; if so, even one example would contradict such a statement.

It seems to me this particular discussion is akin to swatting at fruit flies in a peach-processing shed. The fact is the LDS Church does not adopt a policy or support a practice with the intent of hurting someone. Why would the Church want to do that? Do you think it would be a good way to win converts?

You say "even one example would contradict such a statement." In other words, you believe that if someone suffered negative consequences because of a Church policy, the Church wanted that to happen with malice aforethought. Horsefeathers! Also there's the matter of what you mean by "negative consequences." Some people are waiting to be wounded.

 

[skyrider44]

Do you disagree that the Church knew of and thus intentionally implemented actions with negative impacts? Because I recall a recent post that demonstrated this quite clearly, and you haven't specifically addressed why this post was incorrect. Perhaps you can explain your point of view here?

Please identify the post.

 

[Giordano]

It seems to me this particular discussion is akin to swatting at fruit flies in a peach-processing shed. The fact is the LDS Church does not adopt a policy or support a practice with the intent of hurting someone. Why would the Church want to do that? Do you think it would be a good way to win converts?

You say "even one example would contradict such a statement." In other words, you believe that if someone suffered negative consequences because of a Church policy, the Church wanted that to happen with malice aforethought. Horsefeathers! Also there's the matter of what you mean by "negative consequences." Some people are waiting to be wounded.

Already cited by myself and others. Hint: one example involved the Church's prior overt racism.

 

[Giordano]

Since the plates were not used in the dictation of the book clearly the BoM was not a translation of the plates.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I understand that JS read off the plates inside of a hat using a special seer stone that enabled him to understand the language on them. Some instead indicated he used special eye glasses to do so. What is your understanding?

 

[John Jones]

I don't accept the term "magical thinking." Why? Because it forecloses on the existence and realty of divine inspiration.

Exactly. Because it forecloses on the existence and reality of divinity. That is exactly correct.

 

[Giordano]

Since the plates were not used in the dictation of the book clearly the BoM was not a translation of the plates.

Ah yes: I understand that the plates may not have always been present when JS dictated sections of the Book, only most often. I presume he is supposed to have used his memory of the plates, or some other form of divine guidance at these times. Is this what you meant?

 

[JaysonR]

Perhaps I am wrong, but I understand that JS read off the plates inside of a hat using a special seer stone that enabled him to understand the language on them. Some instead indicated he used special eye glasses to do so. What is your understanding?

The hat and seer stone was Joseph Smith's normal method for using the seer stone to find treasure as a 'treasure seer' (his occupation before becoming a leader of his newly established restoration religion).
He gained his seer stone by using another person's seer stone to find it.

 

[tsig]

Perhaps I am wrong, but I understand that JS read off the plates inside of a hat using a special seer stone that enabled him to understand the language on them. Some instead indicated he used special eye glasses to do so. What is your understanding?

On page 12 of his book An Address to All Believers in Christ, Whitmer wrote,

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear.


Seems clear that all that was needed was a hat and a stone the golden plates could have just as well stayed buried.

 

[skyrider44]

Already cited by myself and others. Hint: one example involved the Church's prior overt racism.

Brigham Young, who implemented the Church's ban on ordaining blacks to the priesthood, got it wrong. There is, in my mind, no doubt about that. For how long, however, are you going to hold his grievous error against the Church? The actions of LDS at Mountain Meadows were terribly wrong, and there is at least some reason to believe that BY orchestrated them. Even if he didn't know before the fact, he certainly knew afterwards. Should we continue to hold that event against the Church? Should we take past errors as evidence that the Church makes errors of the same gravity today? You seem to be suggesting that the answer is yes.

 

[JaysonR]

For how long, however, are you going to hold his grievous error against the Church?

I, for one, am not holding it against the current church body.
But not holding it against the current church body does not change that a negative impact was overtly intended by the LDS organization.

If I don't hold it against the LDS of today, that doesn't erase the history and now make the history that "the LDS Church does not adopt a policy or support a practice with the intent of hurting someone".

No, the history is still that the LDS Church has adopted policy or supported practices with the intent of hurting someone.

And they still do.

Your idea of what hurts someone is simply neglectful of those who are being hurt.
For whatever reason, you seem not to recognize the same-sex individuals as intentionally harmed by the LDS' purposeful policy and practices.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I don't accept the term "magical thinking." Why? Because it forecloses on the existence and realty of divine inspiration.

I see. You do not accept the term,"magical thinking", because you are wedded to your magical thinking.

Perhaps you should get "up to speed" on the problem with the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Assuming the "reality" of "divine inspiration" does not make your superstitions any less superstitious (that whole, you know, evidence problem).

 

[Slowvehicle]

You cannot prove your statement; it is conjecture on your part.

Do you actually mean to be appearing to claim that the institutionalized racism that was your clubs' dogma was unintentional?

Do you actually mean to be appearing to claim that your club's organized attempts to limit the civil rights of a particular minority that some of your members find "abhorrent and disgusting" was (had it been upheld) unintentional?

Do you actually intend to be appearing to claim that your club's historical, institutionalized misogyny was unintentional?

Not a tenable position, in any of the three cases.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The idioms were from the KJV, no question need be reserved.
Should I continue at further length showing more clear relation between the KJV idioms and BoM idioms?
I had considered the above plenty, but now you propose doubt.
Do we need more?

It is clear to anyone with any familiarity with biblical Hebrew that Smith's "authentic" Hebrew idioms are actually "authentic" pseudo-KJV idioms; preserving, not the Hebrew construction, but the language Smith thought would sound "bible-y".

That, or 'god' doesn't "do" languages very well...

 

[Slowvehicle]

I asked a question that included curiosity about how J. S. could have known about the Hebrew idioms. I made no statement in that question that said idioms were of his creation.

The truth is, Smith did not "know" of "Hebrew idioms". Smith adopted the lilt and cant of the KJV. The "Hebrew" idioms in the BoM are the result of Smith aping the language of the KJV, and pretending he was being given a "most correct" interpretation of a text in a made-up language.

See, for instance, the places where Smith "corrected" Hebrew passages, which reversed their actual meanings (as recorded in the KJV).

The operative words are "could easily have." You don't know that he copied them, but, yes, the evidence is strong that he did so.

<snip to repair more of your careless formatting>

The "evidence is strong" that Smith aped the KJV for his invention.

 

[Slowvehicle]

On page 12 of his book An Address to All Believers in Christ, Whitmer wrote,

"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear.


Seems clear that all that was needed was a hat and a stone the golden plates could have just as well stayed buried.

And, as you pointed out before, such a process does not, in fact, admit much room for "error"...unless Smith was just really, really bad at following instructions.

 

[JaysonR]

My most recent response to you, skyrider44, is now located at:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10327001&postcount=3100

 

[skyrider44]

I see. You do not accept the term,"magical thinking", because you are wedded to your magical thinking.

You seem to be wedded to the notion that the only reality that exists is that which can be perceived through the senses. Thus it appears you think that everything that "is" is knowable through human faculties. Such are the constraints of your paradigm.

Perhaps you should get "up to speed" on the problem with the fallacy of circular reasoning.

You, I assume, refer to religion-driven reasoning. You realize, of course, that the fallacy of circulus in probando is susceptible to the same error. Madsen Pirie (whom you seem to dislike) notes: "How do we know that our so-called scientific knowledge is no more than one giant circulus? When we perform scientific experiments, we are assuming the rest of our knowledge is good. All we are really testing is whether the new theory under examination is consistent with the rest of our theories. At no point can we test any of them against some known objective truth. After all, even the theories about what our senses tell us are in the same predicament. It all comes down to saying that science gives us a consistent and useful look at the universe through the ring of a giant circuluc. ("How to Win Every Argument," pp. 27-28)

Assuming the "reality" of "divine inspiration" does not make your superstitions any less superstitious (that whole, you know, evidence problem).

Not any more so than does your "scientific inspiration."

 

[skyrider44]

Do you actually mean to be appearing to claim that the institutionalized racism that was your clubs' dogma was unintentional?

Do you actually mean to be appearing to claim that your club's organized attempts to limit the civil rights of a particular minority that some of your members find "abhorrent and disgusting" was (had it been upheld) unintentional?

Do you actually intend to be appearing to claim that your club's historical, institutionalized misogyny was unintentional?

Not a tenable position, in any of the three cases.

You find it convenient to ignore the fact that you and others tend to link "intentional"/"unintentional" to the claim that the Church actively sought to hurt certain individuals. I do not deny that some individuals were hurt by some Church policies; however, you cannot proceed from that position to claim that the principal purpose of said policies was to hurt people. The principal purpose was grounded in Church doctrine (wrong though you believe it to be); hurting people was/is an unsought byproduct of that doctrine.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You seem to be wedded to the notion that the only reality that exists is that which can be perceived through the senses. Thus it appears you think that everything that "is" is knowable through human faculties. Such are the constraints of your paradigm.

As usual, your dedication to superstition blinds you, and prevents you from being able to identify, much less honestly characterize, my (as you would have it) "paradigm".

You, on the other hand, seem to admit to (even brag of) being in thrall to the idea that there is a magical realm accessible only through the surrender of reason and the surrender to belief. You are, as usual, welcome to present evidence for the subjects of your fairy tales.

In the meantime, I'll be over here, dealing with reality.

If your 'god' is miffed, it knows where to find me.

You, I assume, refer to religion-driven reasoning.

And, as usual when you presume to assume that you, not I, may define that to which I refer, are incorrect. Leave that donkey between you and umption all you want to; it does not change the fact that that to which I refer is, in fact, your dependence upon circular reasoning, bolstered by your need to resort to special pleading (magical thinking at its most superstitious).

You realize, of course, that the fallacy of circulus in probando is susceptible to the same error. Madsen Pirie (whom you seem to dislike) notes: "How do we know that our so-called scientific knowledge is no more than one giant circulus? When we perform scientific experiments, we are assuming the rest of our knowledge is good. All we are really testing is whether the new theory under examination is consistent with the rest of our theories. At no point can we test any of them against some known objective truth. After all, even the theories about what our senses tell us are in the same predicament. It all comes down to saying that science gives us a consistent and useful look at the universe through the ring of a giant circuluc. ("How to Win Every Argument," pp. 27-28)

As I have said before, it is clear that you have read Pirie. Congratulations. Your attempt at diversion is noted. I invite you, as I have so often, on so many of your misstatements, to demonstrate where I have indicated, or even implied, that I "dislike" him (shall I employ your resort to capshout, and insist?). I do wonder how you manage to overlook his stance on resorting to dishonesty to "win" arguments, but that is another issue.

You are, of course, welcome to demonstrate evidence for the mere existence of your 'god' (so very different from the xian 'god', in so many ways); for "xenu"; for the "as 'god' was, man is, as 'god' is, man may become" superstition, or, for that matter, any of the rest of your magical claims (including the exciting stories in the "american chapters" of Smith's invention).

In the meantime, I'll be over here pursuing the baconian project.

You "pray"; I'll work.

Not any more so than does your "scientific inspiration."

Again with the dishonesty. I invite you to indicate where I have used, or even implied, or could be fairly said to have suggested, the term, or the concept, "scientific inspiration". Perhaps you could address my words, rather than what you wish I would say...

Consider the vast gulf, the fundamentally irreconcilable difference, between throwing a switch for light, and praying for enlightenment.

How goes your quest to provide the least scintilla of actual evidence of the things about which you have been asked?

Perhaps you do not realize that evading the question does not make it go away.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You find it convenient to ignore the fact that you and others tend to link "intentional"/"unintentional" to the claim that the Church actively sought to hurt certain individuals. I do not deny that some individuals were hurt by some Church policies; however, you cannot proceed from that position to claim that the principal purpose of said policies was to hurt people. The principal purpose was grounded in Church doctrine (wrong though you believe it to be); hurting people was/is an unsought byproduct of that doctrine.

The "hurt" you dismiss was, in fact, the point of the policy (unless you are claiming, for instance, that "negroes" should not have been "hurt" by being institutionally declared second-class citizens, unworthy of honours and privileges accorded the "white and delightsome"). Your club wanted, needed, to exclude "negroes" from your "priesthood"; you excluded them intentionally, and purposefully. Sophistry does not change that.

If one sets off a mine on a schoolbus, one cannot morally claim that the hurt done the students was not "intentional"; not if one hopes to preserve the least hint of credibility.