A 'Historic' General Conference?

[_silentkid]

My general conference weekend was spent watching 300 on the IMAX on Saturday and taking my dad to see Shooter on Sunday. All said, it was a great weekend.

[_Sethbag]

I'm just going to quickly point out something of which I've taken note. I try to never state something absolutely when it comes to the veracity of the church. I may not be 100%, but I try to avoid saying something is true; rather, I try to say that I believe something is true, or it's true for me. I don't believe in an argument I've ever said that anything is conclusive or definite. I believe this shows a mutual respect and makes discussion and debate an enjoyable process instead of just two people butting heads. The above bold statements show me that Seth is not interested in any real debate or consideration of anything that transcends his own opinion. He has his opinion and that's all that matters to him. I don't think that's a good way to approach debate or discussion with people who have different feelings. Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it's not true, just like the fact that I do believe it doesn't make it true for you.

Maklelan, I have the record to prove that between the two of us, I'm the open-minded and willing to change my opinion, since I can demonstrate that I was willing to consider the arguments for and against the church in the last couple of years and change my opinion based on the evidence. You can demonstrate nothing of the sort, so I think it might be wise for you not to go around charging me with closed-mindedness.

As for my opinion and debate and discussion about the church, I'm totally interested in that. The thing that's confusing you is that in just about all of the all of the apologetic excuses I see bad logic and flailing about looking for a way out, any way out, and it's totally transparent. Go look at CaliforniaKid's thread about Joseph Smith's translation of facsimile #3 again if you want a prime example. Not a single word typed by any of the apologists in that thread got Joseph Smith out of any of the jam he put himself in when he made up the Book of Abraham. Every single apologetic excuse was transparently just flailing about looking for some way out of the problem. Every single one!

Read Her Amun's more recent posts there. He basically admits that he doesn't know how to explain it, but he has a testimony of Joseph Smith, so he knows that it works out somehow, someway. Perhaps you'd like to go confront him with his lack of open-mindedness? You see, you and he are alike in this way. No criticism intended to demonstrate evidence that Joseph Smith was making things up and doing things according to his own will and not God's will be accepted or admitted by you guys, you will always, and do always, look around for an excuse or a way out. This is demonstrated time and time again. Are you really debating and discussing things with an open mind? No! You've made up your mind that the church is true, and you approach each and every single apologetic topic with the goal of defending the church.

I've looked at the evidence, I've looked at both sides of the arguments, and I've changed my mind. About what, in this context, can you demonstrate open-mindedness? And I'd change it back if it could ever be shown that Joseph Smith was right after all. But unfortunately for your side, the prospects of that are pretty dim given the depths of the blatant absurdity to which Mormon apologetics often sinks.

Back to my specific points about General Conference. General Conference may have a lot of talks with very good and helpful points and suggestions. They can be as positive and uplifting as they want to be. I recognize that the people in this church genuinely want to help each other and help people live their lives as happily as possible. All of this I recognize. My point is that people in 2007 can be as genuinely concerned for each other as they can be, can be as helpful in their suggestions for each other as they can be, and be as uplifting and encouraging as they can be, and none of this can change the fact that in the 1830s and 1840s Joseph Smith made up a lot of things he told his followers and was a false prophet for a God who doesn't exist. None of this said in 2007 in General Conference changes the fact that Nephi and Lehi never existed, that the whole Book of Mormon story is fictional. However positive, optomistic, and helpful a given GC talk from 2007 may be, it cannot change the fact that Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham and it is a work of religious fiction.

That's my point. As Gordon B. Hinckley has said, either this church is true, or it isn't. If it isn't, it's a giant fraud, however well-intended by today's followers. It's not your fault. It's not GBH's fault. It's not Boyd K. Packer's fault. They were all born into the church. They all grew up believing it. The leadership of the LDS church today doesn't know that it's not true - they think it is. So they continue leading on a membership that believes it's true. I'm not saying that GBH and the others in the leadership know it's not true and perpetuate in anyhow. I don't believe that at all. They believe it. Unfortunately, their belief is wrong, and so the leadership, as victims of this fraud, continue leading the membership, as victims of this fraud, in this giant self-perpetuating fraud.

GBH himself has said it's either the Kingdom of God or it's a fraud. Those are his words. I'm saying that I believe the evidence clearly shows, to those who are able to sufficiently detach their thinking from the LDS programming of their mind and the blind spots fostered by the LDS beliefs, that it's in fact a fraud, not God's kingdom on earth. So yes, I meant what I said when that Asian military officer just threw his whole family situation into a ditch over a fraud. He just basically gave up his career for a fraud. And you know what? That's too bad.

If this way of thinking so offends you, consider the rest of the world. Are the JW leadership aware that their church is a big fraud? No, I'd argue that they aren't. Like the LDS leadership they've grown up believing it, and they really believe they're Jehovah's true flock on earth, waiting for him to come down and destroy the evildoers and set up his Paradise on earth. The JWs are a perfect parallel to the situation of the LDS church. A believing, yet deceived leadership, leading a believing, yet deceived flock of believers, in a fraudulent belief system. And their patterns of thought are so programmed by their cultural and religious mindset and way of thinking that it is simply impossible for anyone to convince them of the truth of their situation.

And it's the same for any number of other churches. Mak, you must admit that if you have 100 different churches in a room, one of which is LDS, and every one of them claims to be uniquely God's one true and authorized church on earth, from the leadership on down to the youngest baby, at least 99 of those churches are wrong, from the leadership on down. And in every one of those 99 cases, you may have the nicest, most sincere, most helpful people in the world, and yet all of that doesn't change the fact that their beliefs are wrong. From my perspective, all 100 churches in that room are wrong, but you must admit that at least 99 of them are.

[_Pokatator]

Sethbag that is a really great post, touche....

Back to my specific points about General Conference. General Conference may have a lot of talks with very good and helpful points and suggestions. They can be as positive and uplifting as they want to be. I recognize that the people in this church genuinely want to help each other and help people live their lives as happily as possible. All of this I recognize.

Recently I had two mishies in my home. They got off on a conversation on how we need a prophet. They cited many examples of why we need a prophet in these latter days. They were totally convinced that the prophet would give more direct from God advice in the upcoming conference.

I asked what the prophet has given that is so profound in let's say the last twenty years? I got the responses of: the evils of the internet, abortion, morality guidance, 2 years supply, drug abuse, and a few others. So I had to say, "So basically nothing, nothing prophetic that I can't figure out from the Ten Commandments or from my own moral compass on my own or get from almost any Pastor in almost any church, or from listening on the TV to David Kennedy or someone else like that?"

The point is, like Sethbag's quote above, the church does put out good moral direction to a degree, gives good advice on how to live, treat others, and etc. But none of this seems at all special to me, nothing prophetic about it at all.

So the bottom line is I don't need a prophet to help me form my views of how I should use the internet, or my views on abortion, or the common sense of having some food on hand, and etc. The advice is basically, no harm done, but there is absolutely nothing divine or sacred or direct from God about it. I haven't seen anything come from the church in my lifetime that seems uniquely from God conveyed through a prophet. I don't think that even the Manifesto or lifting the Priesthood ban was a, "Thus sayeth the Lord", nothing prophetic. I agree with Sethbag that nothing prior seems prophetic either.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Sethbag that is a really great post, touche....

Back to my specific points about General Conference. General Conference may have a lot of talks with very good and helpful points and suggestions. They can be as positive and uplifting as they want to be. I recognize that the people in this church genuinely want to help each other and help people live their lives as happily as possible. All of this I recognize.

Recently I had two mishies in my home. They got off on a conversation on how we need a prophet. They cited many examples of why we need a prophet in these latter days. They were totally convinced that the prophet would give more direct from God advice in the upcoming conference.

I asked what the prophet has given that is so profound in let's say the last twenty years? I got the responses of: the evils of the internet, abortion, morality guidance, 2 years supply, drug abuse, and a few others. So I had to say, "So basically nothing, nothing prophetic that I can't figure out from the Ten Commandments or from my own moral compass on my own or get from almost any Pastor in almost any church, or from listening on the TV to David Kennedy or someone else like that?"

The point is, like Sethbag's quote above, the church does put out good moral direction to a degree, gives good advice on how to live, treat others, and etc. But none of this seems at all special to me, nothing prophetic about it at all.

So the bottom line is I don't need a prophet to help me form my views of how I should use the internet, or my views on abortion, or the common sense of having some food on hand, and etc. The advice is basically, no harm done, but there is absolutely nothing divine or sacred or direct from God about it. I haven't seen anything come from the church in my lifetime that seems uniquely from God conveyed through a prophet. I don't think that even the Manifesto or lifting the Priesthood ban was a, "Thus sayeth the Lord", nothing prophetic. I agree with Sethbag that nothing prior seems prophetic either.

I think this is one issue mainstream Christianity has with Mormons. We don't need prophets because Christ died for us and we can find the answers through him. Jesus is our guide, he speaks to all of us directly, not through prophets, or something like that. I'm not a fan of organized religion, but I like the idea of spirituality being a personal thing, not something that is managed by prophets and apostles.

[_Who Knows]

I asked what the prophet has given that is so profound in let's say the last twenty years?

I think Joseph Smith is the only one to do something like that. Everyone since then has basically just been your run of the mill preacher.

So the bottom line is I don't need a prophet to help me form my views of how I should use the internet, or my views on abortion, or the common sense of having some food on hand, and etc.

That's probably it right there. Some people do need someone to tell them all that.

[_maklelan]

Maklelan, I have the record to prove that between the two of us, I'm the open-minded and willing to change my opinion, since I can demonstrate that I was willing to consider the arguments for and against the church in the last couple of years and change my opinion based on the evidence. You can demonstrate nothing of the sort, so I think it might be wise for you not to go around charging me with closed-mindedness.

1 - I've seen no indication that you've been open-minded.

2 - Between the two of us, I'm the only one I've ever seen admit I was wrong or apologize to people.

As for my opinion and debate and discussion about the church, I'm totally interested in that. The thing that's confusing you is that in just about all of the all of the apologetic excuses I see bad logic and flailing about looking for a way out, any way out, and it's totally transparent. Go look at CaliforniaKid's thread about Joseph Smith's translation of facsimile #3 again if you want a prime example. Not a single word typed by any of the apologists in that thread got Joseph Smith out of any of the jam he put himself in when he made up the Book of Abraham. Every single apologetic excuse was transparently just flailing about looking for some way out of the problem. Every single one!

I'm not confused at all, and I could care less about how other LDS folk handle these issues.

Read Her Amun's more recent posts there. He basically admits that he doesn't know how to explain it, but he has a testimony of Joseph Smith, so he knows that it works out somehow, someway. Perhaps you'd like to go confront him with his lack of open-mindedness? You see, you and he are alike in this way.

I don't believe I've ever used a testimony as evidence for anything. The closest I've come was saying that I've experienced things that lead me to believe I've been blessed for paying tithing. Now, are you just gonna group the two of us together because we're both LDS, or are you going to back this assertion up with anything?

No criticism intended to demonstrate evidence that Joseph Smith was making things up and doing things according to his own will and not God's will be accepted or admitted by you guys, you will always, and do always, look around for an excuse or a way out. This is demonstrated time and time again. Are you really debating and discussing things with an open mind? No! You've made up your mind that the church is true, and you approach each and every single apologetic topic with the goal of defending the church.

Well, that's a mighty fine assumption you've made. You have no idea why or how I do the things that I do. Do you have evidence for this also, or is this another assumption that will go unsubstantiated?

I've looked at the evidence, I've looked at both sides of the arguments, and I've changed my mind. About what, in this context, can you demonstrate open-mindedness? And I'd change it back if it could ever be shown that Joseph Smith was right after all. But unfortunately for your side, the prospects of that are pretty dim given the depths of the blatant absurdity to which Mormon apologetics often sinks.

Broad sweeping generalizations do nothing to convince me that you've looked at anything with an open mind.

Back to my specific points about General Conference. General Conference may have a lot of talks with very good and helpful points and suggestions. They can be as positive and uplifting as they want to be. I recognize that the people in this church genuinely want to help each other and help people live their lives as happily as possible. All of this I recognize. My point is that people in 2007 can be as genuinely concerned for each other as they can be, can be as helpful in their suggestions for each other as they can be, and be as uplifting and encouraging as they can be, and none of this can change the fact that in the 1830s and 1840s Joseph Smith made up a lot of things he told his followers and was a false prophet for a God who doesn't exist. None of this said in 2007 in General Conference changes the fact that Nephi and Lehi never existed, that the whole Book of Mormon story is fictional. However positive, optomistic, and helpful a given GC talk from 2007 may be, it cannot change the fact that Joseph Smith made up the Book of Abraham and it is a work of religious fiction.

Then why was one of the toponyms that Joseph Smith "made up" discovered right where the Book of Abraham said it should be?

That's my point. As Gordon B. Hinckley has said, either this church is true, or it isn't. If it isn't, it's a giant fraud, however well-intended by today's followers. It's not your fault. It's not GBH's fault. It's not Boyd K. Packer's fault. They were all born into the church. They all grew up believing it. The leadership of the LDS church today doesn't know that it's not true - they think it is. So they continue leading on a membership that believes it's true. I'm not saying that GBH and the others in the leadership know it's not true and perpetuate in anyhow. I don't believe that at all. They believe it. Unfortunately, their belief is wrong, and so the leadership, as victims of this fraud, continue leading the membership, as victims of this fraud, in this giant self-perpetuating fraud.

I disagree with you, but I appreciate you absolving me of responsibility.

GBH himself has said it's either the Kingdom of God or it's a fraud. Those are his words. I'm saying that I believe the evidence clearly shows, to those who are able to sufficiently detach their thinking from the LDS programming of their mind and the blind spots fostered by the LDS beliefs, that it's in fact a fraud, not God's kingdom on earth. So yes, I meant what I said when that Asian military officer just threw his whole family situation into a ditch over a fraud. He just basically gave up his career for a fraud. And you know what? That's too bad.

He's happier for it. Is he to give up what makes him happy to chase after a career?

If this way of thinking so offends you, consider the rest of the world. Are the JW leadership aware that their church is a big fraud? No, I'd argue that they aren't. Like the LDS leadership they've grown up believing it, and they really believe they're Jehovah's true flock on earth, waiting for him to come down and destroy the evildoers and set up his Paradise on earth. The JWs are a perfect parallel to the situation of the LDS church. A believing, yet deceived leadership, leading a believing, yet deceived flock of believers, in a fraudulent belief system. And their patterns of thought are so programmed by their cultural and religious mindset and way of thinking that it is simply impossible for anyone to convince them of the truth of their situation.

I'm not offended by your way of thinking, but I don't think it's honest or respectable to pass such broad judgments on people when you clearly haven't considered everything even-handedly.

And it's the same for any number of other churches. Mak, you must admit that if you have 100 different churches in a room, one of which is LDS, and every one of them claims to be uniquely God's one true and authorized church on earth, from the leadership on down to the youngest baby, at least 99 of those churches are wrong, from the leadership on down. And in every one of those 99 cases, you may have the nicest, most sincere, most helpful people in the world, and yet all of that doesn't change the fact that their beliefs are wrong. From my perspective, all 100 churches in that room are wrong, but you must admit that at least 99 of them are.

That's a gross reduction of the situation. I believe the majority of the people probably have a great relationship with God (probably more so than most Mormons), and I think the majority of them will fare perfectly fine in the afterlife. What they don't have is the authority. They may believe incorrect things, too, but many Mormons believe incorrect things. They're doing the best they can with what they have, just like we are. I may think that they lack some things that I have, but I don't go around telling them that it's not their fault that they're living a lie because they're just stupid, like you do. I joined this church when I was twenty after years of struggle with understanding the world. Do you really think I would lie to myself just so I could cling to a belief system that I think is flawed? What on earth does it benefit me to cling to something I know isn't true? Will that make it true? Of course not. The whole purpose of the church is to find eternal life. If I know I'm not gonna find it why would I continue to allow such a discipline to dictate so many of my decisions and subject me to ridicule from people who think I'm an idiot? Do you really think I'm that stupid?

[_harmony]

Maklelan, I have the record to prove that between the two of us, I'm the open-minded and willing to change my opinion, since I can demonstrate that I was willing to consider the arguments for and against the church in the last couple of years and change my opinion based on the evidence. You can demonstrate nothing of the sort, so I think it might be wise for you not to go around charging me with closed-mindedness.

1 - I've seen no indication that you've been open-minded.

2 - Between the two of us, I'm the only one I've ever seen admit I was wrong or apologize to people.

I think you're both talking past each other. Perhaps if you could both agree on what being open-minded means, that would be helpful. And it also might help if you both agreed what, if anything, admitting to being wrong or apologizing has to do with being open-minded (because personally I don't see the connection).

[_maklelan]

Perhaps you have not, Maklelan, but our leaders certainly have. And since Seth wasn't conversing with you, perhaps we can give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume he was addressing the royal We (as in our LDS leaders), who definitely have come down hard on the side of the church being true, not just that they believe it's true.

Fair enough, but they don't bring it into scholarly environments. He's saying this in a forum built so people can debate the issues. Hinckley is saying it in one of his church's meetings. I bear my testimony when it's appropriate, and in an atmosphere like this I don't because it's not gonna change anything and it's not appropriate. Seth's just bearing his testimony. He's just telling everyone what the sum total of his experiences have led him to believe, just like anyone in sacrament meeting. He certainly hasn't been apprised of everything there is to know, and I know there are issues he can't explain, but he just dismisses them just like he believes any old Mormon with a doubt does. The only real difference between us is preference, but he would have everyone believe that his side is completely and totally objective and honest, and our side is stupid, gullible and deluded.

[_maklelan]

And it also might help if you both agreed what, if anything, admitting to being wrong or apologizing has to do with being open-minded (because personally I don't see the connection).

Open-minded, in my mind, means a person can be objective enough to see and admit that they've been mistaken. It's also helpful to demonstrate that the decisions and arguments are being made by the correct piece of anatomy.

[_Fortigurn]

And it also might help if you both agreed what, if anything, admitting to being wrong or apologizing has to do with being open-minded (because personally I don't see the connection).

Open-minded, in my mind, means a person can be objective enough to see and admit that they've been mistaken.

Sethbag has provided a superabundance of evidence for this. He took a good hard look at the LDS church and decided he had been mistaken in believing it.