LDS

[Foster Zygote]

You and others have repeatedly pronounced the BoM and B/A as frauds.

Yes, and we've repeatedly referenced the overwhelming evidence of that fraud. And we've repeatedly asked you to explain why anyone should believe the claim made in the OP in light of that obvious fraud.

I simply want to know how that "fact" affects you (and them) personally.

The above is a diversionary tactic. The fact that Joseph Smith fabricated the books in question has the effect of making us aware of the lie that he perpetrated. You are attempting to divert attention from your failure to address the gaping holes on Mormon doctrine by making an effort to steer focus away from Smith's claims and fix it upon us personally.

Attacking Joseph Smith is a diversionary tactic.

No, it isn't. It goes directly to the claim made in the OP that, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints... ...is the restored Church of Jesus Christ, with eternal doctrines and teachings dating back to the days of Adam, and to our pre mortal existence". The only diversion is your effort to avoid addressing the crushing evidence against Joseph Smith's claims.

 

[desertgal]

Okay, we've had a couple votes for no answer being the best answer (which must be confusing when other people keep demanding an answer). But I haven't seen any examples yet of what a real answer would sound like.

Here's a hypothetical answer that I'd find satisfactory, given the fact that believers don't generally deconvert after reading a few posts on a forum. It's actually fairly close to was given by Skyrider a while ago (edited to add, for example here or here), but apparently it isn't enough: "There are obviously logical contradictions and contrary evidence, but nevertheless, I can't shake the belief that there is a real god and that the LDS faith is the closest explanation of that god I've found. The logical contradictions don't seem as important to me as you, because my faith still feels true to me, even if it's not logical." (Edited to add: that's a hypothetical answer made up by me as an example of something that would satisfy me, not an attempt to paraphrase anyone else's answers.)

I have a feeling that such an answer would be met with choruses of: But what about the horses? What about the papyrus?

What's a hypothetical answer that would satisfy those who keep asking for answers (not counting of course those who don't ask and would best be satisfied by silence)?

Your example is a hypothetical answer I would find satisfactory.

I've never tried to change anyone's beliefs. Present factual evidence as opposed to fraudulent, yes, but never with the thought that it would change their beliefs, rather maybe give them food for thought. But if they still believe, even after, as in your example, acknowledging contradictions and contrary evidence, that's fine.

Whatever resonates within, whether God or logic.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Okay, we've had a couple votes for no answer being the best answer (which must be confusing when other people keep demanding an answer). But I haven't seen any examples yet of what a real answer would sound like.

Here's a hypothetical answer that I'd find satisfactory, given the fact that believers don't generally deconvert after reading a few posts on a forum. It's actually fairly close to was given by Skyrider a while ago (edited to add, for example here or here), but apparently it isn't enough: "There are obviously logical contradictions and contrary evidence, but nevertheless, I can't shake the belief that there is a real god and that the LDS faith is the closest explanation of that god I've found. The logical contradictions don't seem as important to me as you, because my faith still feels true to me, even if it's not logical." (Edited to add: that's a hypothetical answer made up by me as an example of something that would satisfy me, not an attempt to paraphrase anyone else's answers.)

I have a feeling that such an answer would be met with choruses of: But what about the horses? What about the papyrus?

What's a hypothetical answer that would satisfy those who keep asking for answers (not counting of course those who don't ask and would best be satisfied by silence)?

Actually, yes, that would be a "good" answer, and an answer I, personally, could live with. Particularly if it were not packaged with, "...and here is why you are stupid (or evil, or disgusting, or deceived, or delusional, or unaware of the quality of sectarian scholarship, and so forth...) not to accept "the truth" of it as I do".

The "you just can't see the remarkable internal consistency" card, and the "you're just involved in the historical conspiracy to stamp out my sect", card, and the "if you were really a scholar, you would know the truth" card get a little old.

 

[desertgal]

You and others have repeatedly pronounced the BoM and B/A as frauds. I simply want to know how that "fact" affects you (and them) personally.

And you've been answered, repeatedly. What the hell else do you want here?

Attacking Joseph Smith is a diversionary tactic.

Citing facts about him isn't.

 

[desertgal]

Actually, yes, that would be a "good" answer, and an answer I, personally, could live with. Particularly if it were not packaged with, "...and here is why you are stupid (or evil, or disgusting, or deceived, or delusional, or unaware of the quality of sectarian scholarship, and so forth...) not to accept "the truth" of it as I do".

The "you just can't see the remarkable internal consistency" card, and the "you're just involved in the historical conspiracy to stamp out my sect", card, and the "if you were really a scholar, you would know the truth" card get a little old.

Agreed.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You and others have repeatedly pronounced the BoM and B/A as frauds. I simply want to know how that "fact" affects you (and them) personally.

Attacking Joseph Smith is a diversionary tactic.

Well, for one, I find your pretense that it is lack of intelligence, or comprehension, or preparation, that are the only reasons one would "claim" that the BoA is not a transparent fraud intended to enhance Smith's reputation; or that the BoM is a clearly ahistorical invention.

Claiming that the eschatological superstitions of your sect will repair history is your business.

The that the transparent frauds and inventions are, in fact, "really real", and that bias, ignorance, or stupidity are the only reasons not to consider the BoM/A for what the shallowest investigation indicates them to be is where it begins to affect me.

This is not the venue wherein to expect your credulous beliefs to get "amens".

 

[RoboTimbo]

You and others have repeatedly pronounced the BoM and B/A as frauds. I simply want to know how that "fact" affects you (and them) personally.

Attacking Joseph Smith is a diversionary tactic.

Janadele has repeatedly spread her copy/paste of the frauds perpetrated by Joseph Smith. I simply want to know what "facts" she thinks affects us personally that caused her to start a thread here.

 

[deaman]

Exactly. Atheists and/or non-Mormons have used the opportunity to ask questions of Mormons, which is exactly what the thread was apparently for. I'm not saying the questions are wrong, because Janadele apparently started this thread so people could receive answers from believers.

So I understand why people are asking the questions.

What puzzles me is that they continually reject the answers as not real answers, or not good enough, or... something.

What is it they want to hear from Mormons, if not what they're hearing? What, other than a Mormon renouncing his/her religion, would a satisfactory answer from a Mormon look like?

Pup, I think your right in a "ultimate" sort of way.

It would be awesome to hear someone say, "Wow, you know, this doesn'y really add up. I have never looked at things from this point of view and now that I have, I see some pretty questionable things."

But, I don't "have" to hear anything. People who hear the truth about things are able, as time goes on, to reflect on what's been discussed and then formulate a new paradigm for things.

I don't want an answer. I want "the facts" out on the table. The answer will take care of itself.

 

[Darat]

Thread has been placed on Moderated Status until the Mod Team has time to clean-up the thread and issue the relevant infractions and suspensions. As ever don't try to continue the discussion elsewhere on the Forum.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[bruto]

You and others have repeatedly pronounced the BoM and B/A as frauds. I simply want to know how that "fact" affects you (and them) personally.

Attacking Joseph Smith is a diversionary tactic.

Now it happens that I have not attacked the Mormon scriptures as frauds, because I do not think they are greatly distinguished from other scriptures, but I would say that questions of that nature are entirely valid, and they affect all of us to the extent that one's beliefs form the basis of political action that affects those not attached to them.

As I have said before, I don't see a problem with individuals using those scriptures as the basis for their political beliefs or for argument with others if they have the chops, but the protection of religion disappears when the civil sphere is entered, and that means, among other things, that any time any person with a religious conviction argues for or against a non-ecclesiastical measure (such as gay civil marriage), then his beliefs are open to argument, and the assertion that they are based on fraudulent scriptures becomes entirely relevant. You cannot play both sides on this. If you use opprobrious words against your opponents, or call gay people who are not in your church sinners, they they, in turn, can call you what they will, and your prophet a fraud. If you disagree, argue the point on its merits.

 

[Agatha]

You and others have repeatedly pronounced the BoM and B/A as frauds. I simply want to know how that "fact" affects you (and them) personally.

As has been explained on more than one occasion, because "falsehoods unchallenged only fester and grow". You are free to believe that the demonstrable errors of historical fact and the inaccurate translation of hieroglyphs are unimportant, or excusable, or whatever way you reconcile your scripture with reality.

But when Mormons tout this scripture as true in order to gain converts to their church, it behoves all of us to point out that these errors of historical fact exist, and that the translation of the papyrus is inaccurate. Because reality and truth are the only things in the end that will set us all free.

To turn your question around: [y]ou and Janadele have repeatedly pronounced marriage equality as unacceptable. I simply want to know how that "fact" affects you (and she) personally.

If non-Mormons should (as it appears from your post) to ignore the fraudulent (as we see) nature of the BoM and B/A, and let your religion carry on without criticism, why do you not feel your religion should ignore the sin (as you see) of same sex relationships and the right for them to marry if they choose, and let non-Mormon society carry on without criticism?

It seems to me that you want your religion to be above all critical examination, while simultaneously reserving the right for the members of that religion to not just publicly criticise people outwith the religion, but also to campaign for legislation which directly affects them. That is an untenable position; if you reserve the right to criticise others in the name of your religion, you must expect to have to allow your religion to be criticised as well.

 

[pakeha]

That implies that some sacred texts are kosher. All sacred texts are frauds.

It wasn't my intention to imply some sacred texts are kosher.
Since the thread is about the LDS, I'm concentrating on the BoA and Smith's fraudulent scam in claiming he'd translated some Egyptian texts and palmed them off on a gullible audience and sacred texts.

You and others have repeatedly pronounced the BoM and B/A as frauds. I simply want to know how that "fact" affects you (and them) personally.

Attacking Joseph Smith is a diversionary tactic.

And I simply want to know why the LDS foments and tolerates and teaches blatant and notorious lies and hoaxes.
The thread isn't about my beliefs.
It's about the LDS.

skyrider44, do you really think it's possible to discuss the LDS without dealing with Smith's dishonest claim to have translated the work of Abraham?

 

[skyrider44]

It's been repeatedly stated in this thread that the harm from Mormonism comes from Mormon contributions to the oppression of others.

What form does that oppression take?

Merely believing a work of fiction to be a holy text is not in and of itself harmful. It's what you DO with that belief that causes harm.

And what is it that Mormons DO with said belief that causes harm?

Why are you avoiding this issue?

I asked the question, "How does the 'fact' that the BoM and B/A are frauds affect you?" Here, in this post, you offer no credible answer. It appears it is you who is "avoiding this issue."

 

[skyrider44]

Yes, and we've repeatedly referenced the overwhelming evidence of that fraud. And we've repeatedly asked you to explain why anyone should believe the claim made in the OP in light of that obvious fraud.

Yes, indeed, you have "repeatedly referenced the overwhelming evidence of . . .fraud." The fact that you have done so should make it easy for you to explain how said fraud personally affects you.

 

[skyrider44]

Well, for one, I find your pretense that it is lack of intelligence, or comprehension, or preparation, that are the only reasons one would "claim" that the BoA is not a transparent fraud intended to enhance Smith's reputation; or that the BoM is a clearly ahistorical invention.

I have made no such pretense. Even if I had, how does the fact (your claim) that the BoM and B/A are frauds personally affect you?

Claiming that the eschatological superstitions of your sect will repair history is your business.

You are light years off the point.

The that the transparent frauds and inventions are, in fact, "really real", and that bias, ignorance, or stupidity are the only reasons not to consider the BoM/A for what the shallowest investigation indicates them to be is where it begins to affect me.

So, the beliefs of others, regardless of how stupid, affect you. The followers of a sect in India refuse to kill insects, and that affects you. Some people continue to believe the earth is flat, and that affects you. Still other people believe that the liver is the organ that moves blood throughout the body, and that affects you.

Astonishing.

 

[I Ratant]

The complete lack of anything indicating the continent wide civilization in the Americas that Smith ginned up should be discussable, apart from the really bad presentation of the hieroglyphic "translation".

 

[Janadele]

BTW, Janadele. I do believe that LDS scriptures trump anything that's on LDS.org.

It is not a competition, LDS.org is an official site of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As per my post 8622 I support the Brethren and LDS Public Affairs and their interpretations of The Scriptures, and their endorsement of LDS.org.

 

[skyrider44]

. . . The fact that Joseph Smith fabricated the books in question has the effect of making us aware of the lie that he perpetrated.

Your response has nothing to do with my question, which, it appears, you are unable to answer. I asked (paraphrasing) "How does the 'fact' that the BoM and B/A are frauds affect you personally?"

Some people believe that frogs cause warts; how does that affect you? Others believe that walking under a ladder brings bad luck; how does that affect you? Still others believe that breaking a mirror will result in seven years of misfortune; how does that affect you?

So tell me how does the "fact" that Latter-day Saints believe in two books that are frauds affect you personally? Your attempt at a credible answer falls short. Having been made aware that Joseph Smith was a liar (your characterization), and that the BoM and B/A are frauds, I reiterate: How does that affect you personally?

: No, it isn't. It goes directly to the claim made in the OP that, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints... ...is the restored Church of Jesus Christ, with eternal doctrines and teachings dating back to the days of Adam, and to our pre mortal existence".

That statement, according to you, is a falsehood. You are positive about that. You don't worry about walking under ladders, do you? Nor do you worry about getting warts from handling a frog. Nor do you think breaking a mirror will result in seven years of misfortune. But you are obsessed (so it seems) with what you insist are falsehoods inherit in the history and scriptures of the LDS Church. Let's assume you are right about those LDS "falsehoods." How (I'll ask it again) does that falsification affect you personally?

 

[jsfisher]

Yes, indeed, you have "repeatedly referenced the overwhelming evidence of . . .fraud." The fact that you have done so should make it easy for you to explain how said fraud personally affects you.

Keep in mind, the topic of this thread is all things LDS, and the questions regarding the shady character of the Church founder and other leaders and the fraudulent nature of its cornerstone documents are germane to that topic. Whether and how those questions personally affect Foster Zygote aren't all that interesting, and they wouldn't be very much on topic, either.

On the other hand, how members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reconcile the hoax versus faith questions is an interesting one and completely on topic.

Would you kindly respond to that without further evasion. What would be most useful are your own views on this. Official propaganda, less so.

 

[Craig4]

We'll, not to put too fine a point on it, the fact your "holy" books are frauds only matters to me because you're here. I've never sought out a Mormon to point out their beliefs are incorrect. However, if I get approached by one I have no problem whatsoever in pointing out that what they believe is a fraud. If Janadele wasn't here trying to tell us something that is obviously fraudulent and you weren't here defending the obviously fraudulent we wouldn't be challenging you about the fraud.