Joseph Smith: Narcissistic Personality Disorder?

[_truth dancer]

I'm not sure if this will help but maybe... :-)

Lets say God exists and a few select men saw him.. say Joseph Smith and his friends.

And, lets acknowledge that it takes faith to believe in the one and only true church/God/Jesus/scriptures/religious belief.

So, most healthy people live with a similar sense of reality, if they have faith they may see God, (or get some spiritual witness).

If they do NOT have faith, they will not see God, (or get some spiritual witness).

Either way, (with or without faith), they still live with the shared sense of reality.

Put another way... there is one sense of reality that most healthy people accept and embrace.

Those with faith may see additional realities.

If someone doesn't see God, it doesn't necessarily mean they are delusional* but maybe they just lack faith.

The assertion that if someone doesn't believe Joseph Smith it means they are delusional* is really quite an incredible belief.

~dancer~

[Guest]

Beastie, all we were talking about was different versions of reality. If you can say that Joseph Smith was delusional because he had visions, etc., it ought to be fair to turn it around and at least say people are denying reality (and I never said delusional) ifr Joseph's visions were real.

[_charity]

We aren't talking about whether or not the people who claim to see God and angels are delusional and crazy. If, indeed, there really is a God and angels and these people did have visits from them, they clearly are not delusional. That is not the question. The question is the one you framed:

If Joseph Smith was a prophet, then all the people who refsue to believe him are the ones who are not mentally healthy because they are denying reality and living in a concocted world of their own.

You're going to nitpick about my use of the word "delusional"? Ok, every time I used "delusional" just substitute: "Living in a concocted world of their own." I don't want to type that many words each time, but you should just go ahead and insert those words every time I use the word "delusional". I will place an asterix after the word to remind you. Ok?

You are clearly saying that IF the church is true, people who reject its claims are a little crazy and delusional.*

I am saying that this is not a logically supportable conclusion, due to the fact that faith is required to accept these claims even if the church is true. Faith is required to bridge the gap between the lack of empirical evidence and belief. If adequate empirical evidence were available to support these claims faith would not be necessary. But faith is necessary. As long as faith is required to make the leap of belief, then people who do not make that leap cannot be accused of being crazy and delusional.*

So while they may be "denying reality", it is a reality that is hidden in that it lacks empirical evidence. Hence, it is perfectly logical and reasonable to reject it.

Thanks for supplying yet another example of a cockamamie anti-Mormon strategy. Define words the way you want to use them, apply them to LDS and then try to ridicule and deride LDS beliefs according to YOUR definition.

This is the real definition of "delusion" in the field of psychiatry: A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution. No, I won't accept your made up definition. The only way language is funcitonal is if people agree what the definition of the word is. Dictionaries are our culture's accepted standard. You don't get to make up your own dictionary. So * or not, I don't accept. You are stuck with speaking/writing English, not beastiese.

[_harmony]

Thanks for supplying yet another example of a cockamamie anti-Mormon strategy. Define words the way you want to use them, apply them to LDS and then try to ridicule and deride LDS beliefs according to YOUR definition.

This is the real definition of "delusion" in the field of psychiatry: A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution. No, I won't accept your made up definition. The only way language is funcitonal is if people agree what the definition of the word is. Dictionaries are our culture's accepted standard. You don't get to make up your own dictionary. So * or not, I don't accept. You are stuck with speaking/writing English, not beastiese.

Good Lord. How Juliannesque.

[_harmony]

The thing is, just because X number of people say they saw something doesn't mean they actually saw what they think they saw. Just because they never denied it throughout their whole lives doesn't mean they actually saw what they think they saw.

The only way to prove the Book of Mormon is what it claims it is, and the only way to determine if Joseph really was a prophet is to find the gold plates. Without those, the book is just a myth, and Joseph is just one in a long line of imposters.

[_beastie]

Thanks for supplying yet another example of a cockamamie anti-Mormon strategy. Define words the way you want to use them, apply them to LDS and then try to ridicule and deride LDS beliefs according to YOUR definition.

This is the real definition of "delusion" in the field of psychiatry: A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution. No, I won't accept your made up definition. The only way language is funcitonal is if people agree what the definition of the word is. Dictionaries are our culture's accepted standard. You don't get to make up your own dictionary. So * or not, I don't accept. You are stuck with speaking/writing English, not beastiese.

Oh, for heaven's sake. I told you to insert your own words, Charity. Do it, and then respond in a meaningful fashion. But since you're so hung up on this petty issue, please tell me what the fundamental difference is between being delusional and "Living in a concocted world of their own."

But, for the sake of the real discussion, I will do for you what you are apparently unwilling to do for yourself.

My reformulated post:

You are clearly saying that IF the church is true, people who reject its claims are a little crazy and living in their own concocted world.

I am saying that this is not a logically supportable conclusion, due to the fact that faith is required to accept these claims even if the church is true. Faith is required to bridge the gap between the lack of empirical evidence and belief. If adequate empirical evidence were available to support these claims faith would not be necessary. But faith is necessary. As long as faith is required to make the leap of belief, then people who do not make that leap cannot be accused of being crazy and living in their own concocted world.

[_beastie]

Beastie, all we were talking about was different versions of reality. If you can say that Joseph Smith was delusional because he had visions, etc., it ought to be fair to turn it around and at least say people are denying reality (and I never said delusional) ifr Joseph's visions were real.

Once again. I try so hard to be patient with you even when it seems that you are deliberately avoiding the issue, and even when you engage in silly diversions, like having a fit over my use of the word "delusion" (which we all know is so starkly different than "living in one's own concocted world.")

By your own admission, faith is necessary for belief. The reason faith is necessary is because there is a lack of empirical evidence. Lacking empirical evidence, no one can be accused of being crazy or "living in a concocted world" for not believing in something that can only be believed in with faith.

[_beastie]

Bumping up for an answer from Charity.

[_skippy the dead]

<snip>
2. Three other men see the plates and the angel. No faith required. (But if you aren't going to believe it you have to work pretty hard to tear down their lifelong affirmations of what they saw.)
3. Eight other men see the plates, no angel, get to examine them, turn the pages, etc. No faith required. (And hard work to discredit them.)

There are plenty of people in the world who will affirm that they have been kidnapped and probed by aliens - many with identical stories. Yet I don't imagine that there are many that accept this as fact (I certainly don't). Same with those folks who drilled a hole deep into the earth and dropped a mic to record the sounds of hell. A half a dozen folks attest to this, yet it convinces me not. Having 11 men (many of whom were related) with a vested interest in telling their tell sign off on a statement does not come close to constituting proof of any sort to me, let along "empirical evidence."

[_beastie]

Charity,

You had a fit over my use of the word "delusion" instead of "living in one's own concocted world", and I expect an explanation on how these two are fundamentally different.

I also would like a real answer to my faith comment, in contrast to your fit about delusional.