LDS

[Pup]

You figure it out. Maybe sticking your face in a hat will help.

Speaking of that...

I have an old, worn reproduction common laborer's 1860s hat sitting on my desk, waiting for a new hatband, and every time I see it, I'm tempted. Well, last evening, I finally did it. Put a stone in the bottom of the hat and held it up to my face. I made Cat Tale promise not to laugh first.

Okay, I get it now. As silly as it seems, it would probably include all the attributes that would help induce a mystical or trance state or self-hypnosis in someone who was susceptible to that. One sees the same things across many cultures, from crystal ball gazers to meditating monks.

The stone seems superfluous--didn't really see the point of that, since once it's dark you can't see it anymore--but if you compress the sides of the hat slightly, it's a nice fit from chin to forehead. That excludes the light, the brim in front of your ears slightly muffles sound, and the smell of old fur felt and natural oils and lining material (not really unpleasant) changes the odor, so you get the typical darkness, sense of isolation and incense. But, most importantly, I noticed that as the carbon dioxide builds up, your breathing naturally becomes deeper to get enough oxygen, and therefore slows.

Like dowsing rods facilitating the ideomotor effect, it would facilitate whatever one calls the meditative/medium/trance effect. I've never been able to get the ideomotor effect to work myself, nor meditation either, but I could see that among susceptible people, it could catch on as a fad that "worked," like ouija boards suddenly becoming a new fad that "worked" to tap into the ideomotor effect.

 

[Agatha]

Agatha, As I previously posted some time back. If one is checking through past posts of a particular poster, having those posts below the quote makes this a laborious task, whereas if at the top then each individual post does not have to be opened. So much easier, and a lot less time consuming.

That's not the case on this forum; if you click on a person's name and select find more posts from ... , the quotes are ignored and only the posters own words are shown in the search result. So there really is no reason not to follow the forum etiquette. Try it if you don't believe me. Click on my name, select find more posts from Agatha and this post will show "That's not the case with this forum" rather than the quote of your post.

 

[pakeha]

I read it to mean that since she'd already posted several times in this thread that she agrees the verifiable facts in the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price are false (i.e. no horses in the early Americas) and had posted a link to a church-sponsored website which confirms there were no horses in pre-Spanish America after the ice age, that it was old ground and the poor souls addicted to this thread would already know her view. ...

Actually, Pup, I'd received this answer:

I never said it was false. I just believe there are errors in the translation. Otherwise, again, I believe what I believe even though there is no logical reason for it, and if it makes me the happiest I've ever been, well... there's something to be said about that too!

to my question:
"Why bind your faith and honour to something you know to be false? "

 

[tsig]

Since most of us just read the posts and do not check past posts your rationale seems a bit thin.

Agatha, As I previously posted some time back. If one is checking through past posts of a particular poster, having those posts below the quote makes this a laborious task, whereas if at the top then each individual post does not have to be opened. So much easier, and a lot less time consuming.

 

[tsig]

The above is a perfect example of what I said earlier, about going to primary sources to get away from the pro-Mormon/anti-Mormon dichotomy.

There are layers and layers of sources here, in between us and what really happened in 1826. Skyrider44 started with a pro-Mormon article in FAIR about the 1826 trial, which uses an 1877 article in the Chenango Union as evidence. The Chenango Union account, however, was written by an anti-Mormon. (The author explains toward the end that he's writing it to show "the spirit of delusion that characterized those who originated that prince of humbugs, Mormonism.")

So is the Chenango Union article pro- or anti-? Both sides have claimed it.

Personally, I think it's neither; it just is what it is. Though the author's recollection does have the ring of truth. It's the old, old story of the crazy parent wasting his kids' inheritance on a weird obsession, the kids trying to stop it, and the court probably--it's not made clear--shrugging and saying your father may be nuts, but there's really no law against him spending his money on crazy stuff.

It's well worth reading. Everyone seems to be fooling everyone, except Stowell's sons who watched in frustration, and the poor hired hand Thompson, looking on in amazement.

Stowell and Smith were a match made in heaven, the old dude obsessed with looking for buried treasure, and the new-age boy (as we'd call him today) obsessed with being a seer who could help him find it. They both seemed to be feeding on each other's craziness, but because Stowell had money and was hiring diggers, the money flowed toward Smith.

Facts are neither pro or anti, they're just facts.

 

[Pup]

Actually, Pup, I'd received this answer:

to my question:
"Why bind your faith and honour to something you know to be false? "

That's the standard NOMA answer, right? At least, that's how I understand NOMA: the verifiable information about horses, for example, may be false, but the unfalsifiable information about life after death or how to treat one's fellow men, for example, can still be believed.

As I say, it's not something I agree with, but it's not at all unusual in human nature.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Could someone to whom skyrider44 has recently responded please ask him if he has used the ignore function to hide my posts?

 

[tsig]

Dictated, not translated. God should brush up on his history. 0/10, see me after class.

True, but that brings up the question of why the whole rigamarole with the plates since they were not used in the "coming forth" of the BoM?

 

[tsig]

That's the standard NOMA answer, right? At least, that's how I understand NOMA: the verifiable information about horses, for example, may be false, but the unfalsifiable information about life after death or how to treat one's fellow men, for example, can still be believed.

As I say, it's not something I agree with, but it's not at all unusual in human nature.

If you're* the one deciding whether or not what's in the book is true, why do you need the book?

*generic you

 

[Craig4]

That's the standard NOMA answer, right? At least, that's how I understand NOMA: the verifiable information about horses, for example, may be false, but the unfalsifiable information about life after death or how to treat one's fellow men, for example, can still be believed.

As I say, it's not something I agree with, but it's not at all unusual in human nature.

So if Smith was telling the truth why add all the incorrect detail?

 

[pakeha]

That's the standard NOMA answer, right? At least, that's how I understand NOMA: the verifiable information about horses, for example, may be false, but the unfalsifiable information about life after death or how to treat one's fellow men, for example, can still be believed.

As I say, it's not something I agree with, but it's not at all unusual in human nature.

I'd have thought a direct and sincere question merited something other than a standard answer, NOMA or otherwise.

How odd. At the moment we have brilliant sunshine and snowfall at the same time.

 

[zooterkin]

Agatha, As I previously posted some time back. If one is checking through past posts of a particular poster, having those posts below the quote makes this a laborious task, whereas if at the top then each individual post does not have to be opened. So much easier, and a lot less time consuming.

Even if you were right about that (as Agatha says, you are not), that is still such a rare thing to do that it doesn't make sense to use it as a reason not to conform to the conventions here. Most people read the posts in a thread, not one person's past posts. Your justification would also fall down, if it hadn't already, since it would require all other posters to follow suit to make any difference.

 

[dafydd]

So JS was responsible for the phrase ''talking through your hat.''

 

[Cat Tale]

I'd have thought a direct and sincere question merited something other than a standard answer, NOMA or otherwise.

Sorry, there are so many posts and things are moving so quick, I'm missing what posts people are referring to. Yes, I thought that was answered when I said I never said it was false. What I meant was it wasn't all false. From your perspective apparently it's an all or nothing. From mine I believe it's true with some errors in it much like the Bible. I differ from the Church on that viewpoint.

You know, due to a perceived conflict with another church member I left the church for 10 years, tried to deny God. They were the most miserable years of my life, ask Pup. One day I decided to set aside the pettiness and give the church another try, and I've been happier than I've ever been in my entire life.

The Book of Mormon stories are, to me, inspiring and help me live a better, happier life. I completely understand that it seems illogical to other people, even my husband, who's atheist. There are just some people who need religion, and I'm one of them.

Hope that answered your question.

 

[tsig]

So JS was responsible for the phrase ''talking through your hat.''

Well google didn't yield anything about that phrase but I did find this:



WELCOME TO McMORGBURGERS PLEASE ORDER WHEN READY


Menu Item Description
JESUSBURGER They're DIVINE.

WELFARE FARMBURGER We're not going to do it for you. Get back here and make it yourself!!

TEMPLEBURGER We can't tell you what's in it. It's secret -- I mean, sacred.

POLYGAMYBURGER FRIDAYS Buy 1 and get 5 more for an extra $1.

REVELATIONBURGER If you don't like it, then we'll change it, guaranteed!

LAMANITEBURGER Not as good as the rest. A little darker in color.

BURNING IN THE BOSOMBURGER Comes with extra spicy chili, McMorgburgers secret sauce, and a bottle of Tums.

http://www.salamandersociety.com/planetkolob/

 

[Empress]

Interesting that your supposed special gift and professed "LDS faith" led you to marry a Non Christian.

Wow. So now you're denigrating what she seems to have been told in her Patriarchal Blessing? You've stated you're married to a non-Mormon, why can't she be married to an atheist and still be a Mormon in good standing?

Since the majority of the people I love most in the world are Mormon, I cringe when you write things like this. While their faith is patently ridiculous, they're good people, and would never make such a snide statement. You do your religion no favors.

 

[Cat Tale]

Interesting that your supposed special gift and professed "LDS faith" led you to marry a Non Christian.

My supposed special gift? Huh, you're either calling me out as a liar. Or you're saying that God made a mistake when my stake patriarch gave me my patriarchial blessing. Which one is it? FWIW, you'll lose if you say I'm not LDS.

As far as my marriage to Pup? It was love at first sight. It was a first marriage for both of us yet we were in our late 20s. We've been married over 20 years, have a super relationship. He's been a great supporter of my beliefs, put up with going to church with me for over a year (attending all three sessions) each time, just because I didn't want to drive that far by myself, and he's volunteered to help the church during service days. He's a great guy, and one who's hard to find in today's world. It is indeed a blessing to be his wife.

 

[RandFan]

My supposed special gift? Huh, you're either calling me out as a liar. Or you're saying that God made a mistake when my stake patriarch gave me my patriarchial blessing. Which one is it? FWIW, you'll lose if you say I'm not LDS.

As far as my marriage to Pup? It was love at first sight. It was a first marriage for both of us yet we were in our late 20s. We've been married over 20 years, have a super relationship. He's been a great supporter of my beliefs, put up with going to church with me for over a year (attending all three sessions) each time, just because I didn't want to drive that far by myself, and he's volunteered to help the church during service days. He's a great guy, and one who's hard to find in today's world. It is indeed a blessing to be his wife.

 

[Empress]

My supposed special gift? Huh, you're either calling me out as a liar. Or you're saying that God made a mistake when my stake patriarch gave me my patriarchial blessing. Which one is it? FWIW, you'll lose if you say I'm not LDS.

As far as my marriage to Pup? It was love at first sight. It was a first marriage for both of us yet we were in our late 20s. We've been married over 20 years, have a super relationship. He's been a great supporter of my beliefs, put up with going to church with me for over a year (attending all three sessions) each time, just because I didn't want to drive that far by myself, and he's volunteered to help the church during service days. He's a great guy, and one who's hard to find in today's world. It is indeed a blessing to be his wife.

I think I just developed a girl crush. Terrific post.

 

[jsfisher]

Interesting that your supposed special gift and professed "LDS faith" led you to marry a Non Christian.

Your penchant for posting truly vile things never ceases to amaze me.