In retrospect, the thing that bothered me most

[_Guardiands]

I also want to say that I affiliate myself as LDS, and am clear that I have a "testimony" but that I"m not sure what I believe, ie, that I accept such subjective experiences as valid.

No emotional issues involved for me. That's really what it comes down to.

[_leeirons]

Excuse me if I'm skeptical of you "trying to understand", but I'll take you at your word.

This is a self-admitted assumption on your part. ;-)

" Do members become "agnostic" toward the teachings of the Church just based upon logical reasoning, or must the logical reasoning lead to emotional discontent before the onset of agnosticism? Or is emotional discontent the whispering advisor that is hiding behind the throne of logical reasoning?"

Emotional discontent? Amazing assumptions you make here. Do I have emotional discontent? Are you really in a position to make assumptions like this?

Please read my questions again. I made no assumptions. My questioning case referred to the subset of individuals who consider hemselves agnostic. Then, as pertaning to that subset, I proposed three possibilities. I did not assume any one of them was true for any specific individual. Bryan undertood my questioning.

I get the impression that your emotional contentness is based on the church? Since why else would you assume that one only leaves the church for being emotionally discontent??? Probably not a healthy thing.

Paul (New Testament) said that he had learned to be content in all situations. He also said that because we (Christians) should have hope and joy in the resurrection, that if there is no resurrection, then we of all people are most miserable. I guess my supposition is that I can be content in the belief that things of a religious nature are true, whether they really are or not. The alternative is an ultimate end, in which case, it really does not matter who is right and who is wrong, anyway.

I guess, for some people, such a hope makes the difficult situations of their lives more bearable. You might call this being psychologically frail. But I think that is difficult to judge until you have been where they are.

unfortunately I've decided to live my life based on more objective than subjective bindings. And here I am, happy before and happy now.

"Unfortunately?" I'll assume this was a slip of tounge, because this would not match with your "happy before and happy now" statement. Regarding "objective" versus "subjective," all objective evidence that is used in logical analyses against the claims of Josph Smith are seconday sources or worse. By definition, a primary source must be a witness (in cases of historical events) or the phenomenon itself (in terms of measurement). Not even the papyri that are said to have been the ones used by Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Abraham are primary sources of evidence, because you cannot prove an unbroken link connecting these particular papyri to him. MANY eqyptian artifacts, especially mummies, were imported into this country over the past couple of centuries. Even if "Church historians" say they are the VERY papyri, they really cannot prove it. You might say that many scientists and historians that affiliate with the Church do more damage than good by even atempting to prove their religious beliefs using logical methods.

I know that you can say that I am simply using typical appologetic strategy without proving my own claims to be true. That is my point. No religion has to prove their claims to be true; not unless they claim some corner on scientific knowledge, in which case they are stepping outside of religion and into science, and then must prove their claim. But if you wish to disprove the religious claim that Joseph Smith translated an Egyptian papyrus using the power of God (which IS a scientific claim on your part), then you must be able to prove that you have the VERY papyrus that he used, and then you have to prove that the translation ability was performed in a literal way, and was not a separate "transmission" from God (I say transmission, bcause this is he scientific term for how a truly existing God would communicate: by some form of transmission).

You could also say that there really is no such thing as religion. In other words, all claims are of the same nature, and therefore must be proven. Can anyone present a logical argument for this?

[_Guardiands]

I don't understand what you are talking about. How did we get on the book of Abraham? What has that to do with anything? I'd never argue it was literal, and here's some apologetics from me to you, which you'll enjoy. First, if you are LDS and believe Joseph did a literal translation of a papyrus I'd suggest you read your Joseph Smith Translation and section 7 and the translation of the Book of Mormon, and then answer to me why one would suppose anything other than a reading of a text which sparked a revelation was the result of the book of Abraham? The scrolls could have stick figures on them for all I care, in all previous cases when Joseph translated the text was only a catalyst for revelation. But here I am doing LDS apologetics, but I figured you'd might like that information cause it isn't scientific even if you had the original papyrus ANY more than it is scientific to discredit the JST cause John 5:29 reads different from the KJV to the JST (funny). There some apologetics. But what had that to do with anything? Are you under the impression that I objectively dismiss Mormonism? Heck no. I'll touch on this in the last paragraphs.

As for your original question, I read the two options afterwards as explanations of the logical reasoning, instead of it one of the three.
The "unfortunately" was refering to the assumptions that one would be "miserable" or "discontent" of how you felt I should feel. Unfortunately, I am quite happy. Unfortunately this destroys your theory, or your theory as I misread it.

"He also said that because we (Christians) should have hope and joy in the resurrection, that if there is no resurrection, then we of all people are most miserable."

I'm not miserable, so he was wrong. I like these easy claims, very easy to counter.

Now you seem to entirely misunderstand why I'm not trusting the LDS faith. You try to bring up objective claims as if I care. My reason for not going to church has nothing to do with if I can physically prove the claims or not. I can't, you can't, no one can, religion doesn't rely on that.

Religion relies on Moroni 10.

But WHY should I trust a "witness" of the truth? It is subjective, most people of every religion have a "witness" (mystical experience/holy ghost) saying their religion is true.

Why should I live my life according to an inconsistent witness which gives a different answer to 99% of the world?

Anyway, that is the subjective vs. objective. How the book of abraham came into this i"ll never know,but it is fun to discuss.

I guess I'll ask you, why do you trust your subjective experiences? your holy ghost/mystical experience, do you have so much faith in this witness to let it govern your whole life, and if so why?

[_leeirons]

"He also said that because we (Christians) should have hope and joy in the resurrection, that if there is no resurrection, then we of all people are most miserable."

I'm not miserable, so he was wrong. I like these easy claims, very easy to counter.

How was Paul wrong about you not being miserable?? I don't see how what Paul said and your response relate in any way.

Anyway, I apologize. I did not read through the whole thread on this one. I read your statement that seemed to suggest that a preponderance of evidence makes an argument objective. I simply brought the Book of Abraham in as an example. It had nothing to do wih prevous discussions in this thread.

And if you are happy in your objectivity (which would mean you are happy with our criminal court system), why can't I be happy in my subjectivity? I could argue that what you call subjectivity could be very objective; it all depends upon how society, your ancestors, your friends measure your life when you are dead. Of course, I guess the only true objective measure is what happens next when you die. Neither one of us can PROVE either side on this matter.

[_desert_vulture]

If he had never played the "I'm a translater, watch me translate" role, there wouldn't have been Kinderhook and Book of Abraham. He could have just said he got cool visions. The props -- a con-man's tools -- were so unnecessary. He could have just got all the information he wanted from various dead angels or directly from god in visions.

I agree that his "translator" hat got Joseph Smith into trouble with Book of Abraham and Kinderhook. After reading Criddle's paper on Sidney Rigdon http://mormonstudies.com/criddle/rigdon.htm I am persuaded that Sidney Rigdon actually sought out Joseph Smith precisely BECAUSE of his props and conman tactics. Without the seerstone and the hat act, why would Rigdon have needed Smith? After the church got moving, and Joseph Smith assumed the primary role as prophet AND revelator, Rigdon consistently battled with Joseph Smith over who held the reins to the church. I think that Rigdon was the planner, who thought up most of the original framework, and assumed he would use Joseph Smith to pull it off. Why not? Joseph Smith had completely fooled others. Rigdon completely underestimated young Joseph Smith's bravado and narcissism.

So Joseph Smith used the tools of his trade (i.e. the seerstone, the hat, the plates, etc) as props to pull off the story. His props emphasized his importance to the lay public, and cemented his role as founder of the church, not Rigdon. I agree though, that the test of time has been awfully tough on Joseph Smith and his props, now that most people don't believe in divining rods, talismans, or seerstones anymore. I think he kept the props around long enough to establish his priority over Rigdon, in the early days, and once the reliance on props had been established, he kept going back to the well over and over. I think he would steal ideas from any source he thought would be convincing, whether it was the freemasons, the New Testament, or magicians. I don't remember the reference, but somebody wrote down a version of Joseph Smith and Sidney receiving D&C 76, and it sounds to me like the two are sparring. One would describe what he saw "in vision" and the other would respond "I see it too" back and forth and back and forth, like a tennis match. I think once Rigdon realized that Joseph Smith was running away with the church, he tried to compete on a magical level (by simulating the magic Joseph Smith did) but just couldn't keep up with Joseph Smith, who was far more practiced and proficient.

But that would be one reason Joseph Smith placed so much emphasis on his props: It was his forté. And it kept Rigdon at bay, who I believe, originally wanted to control the church, with Joseph Smith as his young apprentice.

[_Guardiands]

"Neither one of us can PROVE either side on this matter."

So why missionaries? Why scriptures? Why even ask people to pray? Isn't it deceitful to pretend you can prove it? How is a witness from the Holy Ghost proof? it isn't, right?

On a personal note, really, why do you accept your witness from the holy ghost? Why trust it?

[_Guardiands]

Desert, that was a very interesting post, I don't know if I agree with all the conlusions, but the ideas are very good.

[_Runtu]

So Joseph Smith used the tools of his trade (i.e. the seerstone, the hat, the plates, etc) as props to pull off the story. His props emphasized his importance to the lay public, and cemented his role as founder of the church, not Rigdon. I agree though, that the test of time has been awfully tough on Joseph Smith and his props, now that most people don't believe in divining rods, talismans, or seerstones anymore. I think he kept the props around long enough to establish his priority over Rigdon, in the early days, and once the reliance on props had been established, he kept going back to the well over and over. I think he would steal ideas from any source he thought would be convincing, whether it was the freemasons, the New Testament, or magicians. I don't remember the reference, but somebody wrote down a version of Joseph Smith and Sidney receiving D&C 76, and it sounds to me like the two are sparring. One would describe what he saw "in vision" and the other would respond "I see it too" back and forth and back and forth, like a tennis match. I think once Rigdon realized that Joseph Smith was running away with the church, he tried to compete on a magical level (by simulating the magic Joseph Smith did) but just couldn't keep up with Joseph Smith, who was far more practiced and proficient.

But that would be one reason Joseph Smith placed so much emphasis on his props: It was his forté. And it kept Rigdon at bay, who I believe, originally wanted to control the church, with Joseph Smith as his young apprentice.

I think there's a lot of truth in this post, DV. Dale Broadhurst once said something that stuck with me, something to the effect that Joseph and Sidney were simultaneously building a church and running a scam. If you look at Joseph's revelatory career, the real flurries of innovation happened when there was some major crisis or fissure in the church. Joseph used the tools of his trade, as you put it, each time to shore up his flagging leadership. It's as if he thought he could quiet discontent by revealing some awesome new truth, such as temple worship or the premortal life. It seems to have worked for the most part.

Rigdon had the religious training (and I suspect that the part of the endowment about the preacher was an overt reference to Sidney's waning power), but Joseph had the imagination and the prophetic aura.

[_MormonMendacity]

...Joseph had the imagination and the prophetic aura.

This concept has been, and is, very helpful to me in understanding the evolution of the Church and leadership.

There is really no charismatic leadership in the Church and has not been any since Brigham. There are many ideologues but they lack the charm that was required to build a church, although they are probably necessary for managing the current bureaucracy.

Could another charismatic leader ever take the reigns of the Church now? Has the bureaucracy become so entrenched that there is no way for a young, dynamic leader to take hold? Where is the man who will translate the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon; a new, authentic Prophet, Seer and Revelator?

Now those words seem to be banal and pointless to me.

[_Gazelam]

There are plenty of great and charasmatic leaders, but you have to listen to General Confrence and to what goes on in the church to find them.

Truman Madsen, Joseph Fielding McConkie, Robert L. Millet, Apostle Jeffrey R Holland, ... I love to hear all of these men speak, and I love to read their writings.

You can find both video, audio, and written talks by each of these men with a simple google search. I encourage you to do so.

Gaz