LDS II: The Mormons

[Nay_Sayer]

I know, really. All these fools linking to archeological, astrophysical, genetic, metallurgical, academic, Egyptology, theological, historical, geological, anthropological, radiological, epigraphical, chronological, codicological, philological, and the rest of those silly established scientific disciplines when they could just accept the word of a convicted confidence man that used his position of authority to get in the pants of young girls.

The real kicker is when they link to blatant anti-Mormon sites like byu.ed. It sickens me that nearly the entire collected knowledge of mankind and the internet don't support the BOM or the BOA except for what some would call apologetic sites that aren't peer reviewed or distort findings.

Funny that.

It's always anti mormon. How do we know? Any sentences suggesting the fallibility of old joe and his dirty hat.

 

[jsfisher]

Here again (as you have done countless times) you make an unsupportable assumption. How do you know that certain artists were only under the impression that divine influence was operative in the creation of their masterpieces? You don't know that any more than you know that Mars is inhabited by green, one-eyed midgets with ears six inches wide.

And here again, as you have done countless times, you completely mischaracterize what others have written. I don't know if it is deliberate or simply poor comprehension skills on your part, but it was not a question of what Slowvehicle knows or doesn't know. It was a question of what you know. You do not know that certain artists were under divine influence. At best, you can say that certain artists have been under the impression that "divine inspiration" was "operative" in their acts of creativity.

Please read (and understand) what people actually write, and respond accordingly.

 

[Craig4]

Excellent question. Answer: Because that's the fountainhead of all of their information. It's where they go to find information that supports their position.

I think "Past Horizons" and "Archaeology Today" would be surprised to learn they are anti Mormon sites. I doubt the majority of people involved in those publications even know what's in the Book of Mormon.

 

[Giordano]

And here again, as you have done countless times, you completely mischaracterize what others have written. I don't know if it is deliberate or simply poor comprehension skills on your part, but it was not a question of what Slowvehicle knows or doesn't know. It was a question of what you know. You do not know that certain artists were under divine influence. At best, you can say that certain artists have been under the impression that "divine inspiration" was "operative" in their acts of creativity.

Please read (and understand) what people actually write, and respond accordingly.

I intended to write my own response to skyrider's latest post, but this response covers the same points that I intended to address very well.

Skyrider's posts often change the subject (often completely ignoring the many posts that have since refuted his most recent claims- for example, Skyrider again claims that a person claiming divine inspiration should be viewed as accurate, but that a person denying divine inspiration is likely ignorant and inaccurate). "He" has similarly repeatedly refused any correction as to what another poster actually wrote, and has maintained his distorted, strawman interpretations of these writings in his subsequent posts.

Well everyone in this thread has read the refutations and corrections of his claims, and it is easy to re-read them in the thread if there is any question, so these attempts to ignore them or distort them fall far short and only highlight the lack of a Skyrider's ability to rebut these corrections.

 

[Pup]

Here again (as you have done countless times) you make an unsupportable assumption. How do you know that certain artists were only under the impression that divine influence was operative in the creation of their masterpieces? You don't know that any more than you know that Mars is inhabited by green, one-eyed midgets with ears six inches wide.

It's the only statement that can be made based on the evidence. We can't say they are and we can't say they aren't, based on their words alone. To claim that they were under true divine influence is over-reaching the evidence just as claiming that they were not.

I never said Handel was influenced by the God LDS worship. BTW, how do you know what god Handel worshipped (assuming that there are, as you suppose, many gods)?

Then why did you bring him up? What is his relevance to the LDS church or to this conversation?

The following is what confuses me.

The only actual evidence we have for Handel's influence is his own words. Everything else is speculation. Do you believe his words or not? Above it seems you're skeptical about what god he worshipped, but below, from post 1917, you seem to say that we should accept others' claims about their inspiration at face value:

Divine inspiration has been operative in the creation of some of the world's greatest inventions and works of art. How do we know that? The men and women who created said inventions and art have, themselves, stated they were divinely inspired.

No one before the 1820s could knowingly claim to be influenced by the LDS god specifically, because there was no LDS restoration before then. Whether the LDS god was "really" behind their inspiration or not, they couldn't articulate it until they heard of Joseph Smith's experience.

Handel was a careful choice because his religion and his description are vague enough that one can't say exactly what god he was talking about, other than a vaguely Christian one with angels, so the LDS church might be able to fit their god in that gap.

But here's the problem. He's only one of millions of people who claim to be influenced by god(s), and many of them are very specific and could not be talking about the LDS god by any stretch of the imagination (tribal gods, the Catholic god, etc.).

How would you address their words? Were they mistaken? Should be disbelieve them? What are you claiming? What is the relevance of Handel's experience and his words to your point? I'm genuinely puzzled and trying to figure it out.

You reject wholesale the validity of all first-person accounts. How you are able to do that is a mystery.

Surely you can see how you're distorting what Slowvehicle said. Discounting the validity of one first-person account does not mean discounting the validity of all. In fact, I can't even tell if you're discounting the validity of first-person accounts yourself, based on my questions above. If someone said the Catholilc god inspired them, would you believe them? Or would you say that they really meant the LDS god but just weren't aware of him?

There was at least one incident (regarding, IIRC, the Spencer Lake Horse Hoax) where J'delle quoted a BYU professor in one place, but dismissed him as an "anti-mormon" source in another.

That sounds just like the kind of thing I was thinking of. Thanks!

 

[John Jones]

Here again (as you have done countless times) you make an unsupportable assumption. How do you know that certain artists were only under the impression that divine influence was operative in the creation of their masterpieces? You don't know that any more than you know that Mars is inhabited by green, one-eyed midgets with ears six inches wide.



You commit an error in inductive reasoning. [...]


Still another error in inductive reasoning.

Are you parroting something you heard elsewhere?

 

[RoboTimbo]

(assuming that there are, as you suppose, many gods)?

This would be funny if it weren't so blatantly and sadly dishonest. Do you get extra god points for this tactic?

 

[Slowvehicle]

Here again (as you have done countless times) you make an unsupportable assumption. How do you know that certain artists were only under the impression that divine influence was operative in the creation of their masterpieces?

(emphasis added)

Thank you for (finally) admitting to a place in the text where you have altered my post. Seeing you master the ellipsis is, in fact, a refreshing change. it almost gives one hope.

OTH, you immediately pull a "26:11" by resorting to distortion of my words. Again.

The highlighted term is your own, unique, redaction; it neither appears, nor can with any pretense of honesty be said to be implied by, what I posted. It is, however, the argument to which you are prepared to respond, so your need (independent of my words), makes it (in your mind) a proper insertion.

What I did, in fact, say, is that an artist's own conviction that "divine inspiration" was operative in her creative process is not, in fact, evidence for the operation of "divine inspiration" (any more than the home crowd's conviction, at Notre Dame Stadium, that "touchdown Jesus" is on their side is evidence for what the final score will be).

I do know that there is no evidence, none, for the mere existence of a "divinity"; further, there is no evidence, none, for the operation of "divine inspiration" (to say nothing of the problem of from which of the multiple thousands of invented 'gods' the "divine afflatus" is to be taken as having issued).

I will forego your careless use of the term, "masterpiece".

You don't know that any more than you know that Mars is inhabited by green, one-eyed midgets with ears six inches wide.

Consider the Teapot; consider the Unicorn.

I can say, with confidence, that no evidence of the existence, upon Mars, of any form of life (more complex than bacteria) has even been advanced. Currently, Mars appears to be inhabited primarily by robots.

You commit an error in inductive reasoning. You would have us believe that one person's experience is of universal relevance.

First, you mistake a hypothetical. Tsk, tsk. Then, you indulge in the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. Which is odd, as you, yourself, belong to a minority splinter sect of xianity. How does the number of people on board, or the cost of the calliope, repair your fallacia pompae?

I never said Handel was influenced by the God LDS worship.

I wonder how many 'gods' capable of "divine inspiration" you, personally, believe there are. I wonder if you realize that the concept of multiple 'gods' is not an xian concept.

BTW, how do you know what god Handel worshipped (assuming that there are, as you suppose, many gods)?

First, is it you, not I, who assumes there are (or must be) "many 'gods' " (see just above). I do not assume there is (or are) any 'god' (or 'gods'). (To clairfy: "not any" is less than "many"; in fact, it is less than "one".)

Second, if you are not qualified to discern the deeply Lutheran protestant themes in the theology expressed in Messiah, you must (at least) be able to encompass the idea that Handel was not a devotee of the mormon 'god', as mormonism had not yet been invented. I do not claim to "know" what 'god' Handel worshiped, but I can read.

That's your assertion; otherwise, you wouldn't have asked the question.

You (once again) mistake a hypothetical. It is not, in fact, I who "asserts" that there are multiple 'gods'. The one making that implication is, in fact, you (see just above).

To clarify: what I have asserted is that an artist's claim, or belief, or assertion that "divine inspiration" was operative in her work is not (I repeat, not) evidence of the actual existence (or operation) of "divine inspiration".

Surely you have some fresh, new, valid accusations to lodge against me.

Perhaps you should check your "650,000-word dictionary"; you appear to be misusing the simple English noun, "accusation".

OTH, as long as you indulge yourself in your habit of basing your arguments upon cherry-picking, and quote-mining, and research-by-title, and special pleading, I will point it out.

You are well acquainted with those terms, having availed yourself of them countless times.

An assay of the Verónica grande only works when you do not get caught in the attempt at misdirection. I wonder why you did not address the fact that you are employing a circular argument, built upon the shifting sands of special pleading, at all.

You reject wholesale the validity of all first-person accounts. How you are able to do that is a mystery.

How you are able to make a claim this dishonest is the real mystery. An artist's superstition that "divine inspiration" was a facet of her creative process does, in fact, indicate that the artist believes in "divine inspiration". What it does not (I repeat not) indicate is that there is, in fact, such a thing as "divine inspiration".

No matter how often you offer up pale-pink straw-stuffed sprats.

You know virtually nothing about LDS doctrine; it holds that there is God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

What of the theology of Lorenzo Snow?
https://www.lds.org/churchhistory/presidents/controllers/potcController.jsp?leader=5&topic=quotes
http://www.mrm.org/lorenzo-snow-couplet

Has that been rejected by "divine revelation", or was it simply wrong in the first place?

Does not LDS theology hold that humans can, themselves, become 'gods'?
http://www.mrm.org/god-of-mormonism

More dishonesty, eh? Surprised I am not. Yes, "some" people may wrongly claim "divine inspiration," but "some" is not the same (ahem) as all.

(emphasis added)

Why do you continue to redact what I have written, then bristle when I point out that such a low tactic is, in fact, dishonest? Why do you deign to stoop so low?

It is, in fact, dishonest of you, even here as you do it again.

The highlighted word is your own, unique contribution; it can neither be found in my words, nor honestly said to be a colorable implication of my words.

Still another error in inductive reasoning.

Then why do you keep doing it? Once again, you mistake the hypothetical, in order (apparently) to avoid addressing the actual issue.

You did not, in fact, answer my question. Again.

Your proclivity for conjecturing appears to know no bounds. I find that strange, inasmuch as you are "big" on evidence.

Are you denying that you did, in fact, make a claim about the operation of "divine inspiration", a claim for which you have provided no support?

I wonder what you think "conjecture" means.

 

[Olowkow]

Excellent question. Answer: Because that's the fountainhead of all of their information. It's where they go to find information that supports their position.

I'm not sure those are fair or even accurate statements. I think it has been a learning experience for many of us to determine which sites were generally considered to be "anti-Mormon" by Mormons. It was clear that in the beginning of this thread, some of us were, regretfully, quoting sources which were run by ex-Mormons and could be considered to be anti, or perhaps non-factual, in the eyes of the faithful.

I found that objection to be reasonable, so I then began to use only sources which were either LDS positive or obviously neutral with respect to any sectarian purposes. I got very few responses. Some posters even used the BOM itself to point out grammatical errors which unambiguously point to fraud by Smith. The claim that quoting respected scientific sources for archaeological facts which contradict secular claims might be somehow anti-Mormon is not even a remotely convincing argument. It really does nothing to advance the image of LDS, if that is your purpose here.

 

[tsig]

I think "Past Horizons" and "Archaeology Today" would be surprised to learn they are anti Mormon sites. I doubt the majority of people involved in those publications even know what's in the Book of Mormon.

Facts are anti Mormon.

 

[Giordano]

I presume that any ex-Mormon must be a disgruntled ex-Mormon and therefore (by definition) is not trust worthy. And a never-was a Mormon can not understand Mormon belief. So one can only trust current Mormon believers for the facts. And they obviously believe in the facts as the Church sees them.

Does Skyrider see any problem with this logic

 

[tsig]

I presume that any ex-Mormon must be a disgruntled ex-Mormon and therefore (by definition) is not trust worthy. And a never-was a Mormon can not understand Mormon belief. So one can only trust current Mormon believers for the facts. And they obviously believe in the facts as the Church sees them.

Does Skyrider see any problem with this logic

So the fact that you are willing to argue with him shows you are not qualified to argue with him.

 

[Pup]

It was clear that in the beginning of this thread, some of us were, regretfully, quoting sources which were run by ex-Mormons and could be considered to be anti, or perhaps non-factual, in the eyes of the faithful.

It really is surprising how much anger is directed toward the LDS Church still today, compared to other Protestant denominations and the Catholic church too of course, especially in the US where conservative Christian religions generally flourish and cooperate.

Don't know why, because the main LDS church is blending toward the mainstream about as much as any conservative don't-smoke, don't-drink, dress conservatively, no-sex sort of Protestant sect. I'm not counting the odd little polygamy branches, which are like the Westboro Baptist branch of other religions and generally an embarrasment to the main churches.

But it's still really hard for the LDS church to shake the haters among other similar religions. (Needless to say, one can see why all such sects have haters among marriage equality folks and so forth, but that's a different story.)

My wife and I joke that between an atheist and a Mormon, it's hard to guess who the average Protestant hates more. Personally, I see far more difference between Catholic and Protestant mindset and worship, but apparently the differences between LDS and other Protestant sects are just too great for other Christians to get around.

I found that objection to be reasonable, so I then began to use only sources which were either LDS positive or obviously neutral with respect to any sectarian purposes. I got very few responses.

And there's the unfortunate down-side. The LDS Church, with its BYU mainstream NOMA side, could step away from acting like a weird little hated sect, but the paranoia runs both ways.

The claim that quoting respected scientific sources for archaeological facts which contradict secular claims might be somehow anti-Mormon is not even a remotely convincing argument. It really does nothing to advance the image of LDS, if that is your purpose here.

Seriously. It's just strange, and puts them in the category of the oddball creation-museum folks. But the irony is that the LDS church can't even find fellowship there, because the usual creation-museum types are LDS-haters too. They might put aside their differences to create a multi-sect intelligent design cooperative among various Protestant sects, but they still shun the LDS creationist types that might ally with them.

Sigh. I'll never understand religion. It's all about debating which end of the egg to break first.

 

[skyrider44]

And here again, as you have done countless times, you completely mischaracterize what others have written. I don't know if it is deliberate or simply poor comprehension skills on your part, but it was not a question of what Slowvehicle knows or doesn't know. It was a question of what you know.

Wrong. Implicit in SV's question was the assumption that he, somehow, knows that divine inspiration was not operative in the creation of masterpieces. Consequently, contrary to your claim, it is a question of what SV knows or doesn't know. Otherwise, he wouldn't have asked the question in a futile effort to put me on the defensive.

You do not know that certain artists were under divine influence. At best, you can say that certain artists have been under the impression that "divine inspiration" was "operative" in their acts of creativity.

Amusing. In a court case, if an eyewitness gives a first-person account of a murder, the jury should dismiss it on the ground that the eyewitness was merely "under the impression" that he saw what he saw. There are artists/inventors who have said, without equivocation, that divine influence was operative in their process of accomplishing what they accomplished.

Please read (and understand) what people actually write, and respond accordingly.

I appreciate your suggestion, and I have responded to your post accordingly.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Amusing. In a court case, if an eyewitness gives a first-person account of a murder, the jury should dismiss it on the ground that the eyewitness was merely "under the impression" that he saw what he saw. There are artists/inventors who have said, without equivocation, that divine influence was operative in their process of accomplishing what they accomplished.

So if I say that The Flying Spaghetti Monster inspired me to know that the BoM was written by a con man who hoaxed up a new religion so he could get into little girls' pants, then that proves to you that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is real?

 

[jsfisher]

Wrong. Implicit in SV's question was the assumption that he, somehow, knows that divine inspiration was not operative in the creation of masterpieces. Consequently, contrary to your claim, it is a question of what SV knows or doesn't know. Otherwise, he wouldn't have asked the question in a futile effort to put me on the defensive.

Ok, so your mischaracterizations are deliberate, then. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[skyrider44]

I presume that any ex-Mormon must be a disgruntled ex-Mormon and therefore (by definition) is not trust worthy.

You make a fallacious generalization. There are ex-Mormons who have been excommunicated for a serious violation of LDS rules who are anything but "disgruntled." That's why they have repented and are working diligently to be restored to full fellowship in the Church.

And a never-was a Mormon can not understand Mormon belief. So one can only trust current Mormon believers for the facts. And they obviously believe in the facts as the Church sees them.

Your logic here is askew. There are never-was Mormons who have spent years studying and writing about the LDS Church and its scriptures, and who know more about the Church than many members know. One is a professor, as I recall, at the University of Indiana. So, your statement "one can only trust current Mormon believers for the facts" is light years from the truth.

Does Skyrider see any problem with this logic

See above.

 

[skyrider44]

Ok, so your mischaracterizations are deliberate, then. Thanks for the clarification.

Wasn't it you who said something about my "reading comprehension"?

Such irony.

 

[jsfisher]

Wasn't it you who said something about my "reading comprehension"?

Such irony.

The truly ironic part is that fact I didn't use the word, "reading".

 

[Slowvehicle]

Wrong. Implicit in SV's question was the assumption that he, somehow, knows that divine inspiration was not operative in the creation of masterpieces.

This is, simply, incorrect.

You might consider actually reading what "SV" has posted.

"SV" has posted, repeatedly, that an aritst's belief that her work was influenced by the "divine afflatus" is, in fact, evidence of her belief, and nothing more.

If "divine inspiration" is to be taken as an actual, tangible, demonstrable effect, evidence (concrete, empirical, non-anecdotal, testable evidence) for its existence and operation must be presented. Without such evidence, the superstition of "divine inspiration" is one with the superstition of the gris-gris, or throwing salt over one's left shoulder after spilling it (or even the efficacy of prayer in healing).

No such evidence has been presented. If you believe you have such evidence to offer, stand and deliver--but be aware that unsupported claims about one's feelings do not constitute evidence.

Consequently, contrary to your claim, it is a question of what SV knows or doesn't know. Otherwise, he wouldn't have asked the question in a futile effort to put me on the defensive.

This is, simply, incorrect. I have never made the claim about "knowing everything" that you attribute, incorrectly (and dishonestly) to me. It has exactly the same substance as your claim that you are my "incorrigible enemy", or that I "chose to 'become faithless' ", or any of the other multiple unsupported claims and assertions you have made regarding what I know, or what I believe.

I wonder what it is that you think gives you leave to arrogate to describe (incorrectly) my motivation. You continue to mistake a hypothetical (tsk, tsk); I wonder what rhetorical advantage you think it boons you.

Not to mention, you do not appear to need the slightest bit of help putting yourself "on the defensive"; it does not avail you to raise up people of straw and blame them.

Amusing. In a court case, if an eyewitness gives a first-person account of a murder, the jury should dismiss it on the ground that the eyewitness was merely "under the impression" that he saw what he saw. There are artists/inventors who have said, without equivocation, that divine influence was operative in their process of accomplishing what they accomplished.

I do wish you had answered my question about where you read for the law.

Consider Simons' Gorilla.

Or read:
http://people.howstuffworks.com/eyewitnesses-unreliable.htm
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1228141?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21105279571683
http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/fecourtl2&div=4&id=&page=

If an eyewitness sincerely claims to have seen Banquo's Ghost, the reasonable presumption is not that "ghosts" exist, but that the eyewitness is mistaken. If an eyewitness reports that graves opened, and zombis walked the streets, the reasonable presumption is not that zombis exist, but that the eyewitness is mistaken. If an eyewitness claims to have seen a long-dead person commit a crime, or to have seen a victim savaged by a chupacabra, or to have seen a witch flying on a broomstick cast a spell on a victim, the reasonable presumption is that the witness is mistaken, or misspoken, or mendacious. The reasonable presumption may, of course, be overcome by the presentation of evidence; but it must be overcome by the presentation of evidence, not by simple assertion.

Would you equally uncritically accept that an artist's belief that her work was influenced by the action of the "different hemispheres" of her mind was evidence that the discredited "left brain/right brain" snopesfodder is, in fact, true?

Would you equally uncritically accept that an artist's belief in her "lucky socks" or her "special brush", or her I Ching reading. or the results of her most recent hepatomancy (to say nothing of her natal moment horology casting) were to be taken at face value?

Your resort to special pleading does not make claims of "divine inspiration" any more credible, or creditable, than any of those examples.

I appreciate your suggestion, and I have responded to your post accordingly.

Your resorts to fabrication do not demonstrate that you comprehend what you claim to have read.