Noah's Ark questions

[_Themis]

Yes a test which makes no sense, and is a test of gullibility. I seriously doubt a God would reward people for gullibility. You dismiss science when it doesn't fit what you want to believe, just as so many others do in other religions. They to will be faithful to their beliefs and legacies of their ancestors. Except for your ancestors who were not Mormon or Christian.

Or, a test of patience and faith and belief, and willingness to persist, as it has always been claimed to be.

That's a test of gullibility. Most have religious beliefs different then your own. They to remain faithful thinking they will be rewarded for it. They also don't really know their beliefs are true. It's not really a virtue to stick with beliefs you don't know are true, and worse if you have good evidence against. How is testing one to see if they will stick with a belief, right or wrong, a good thing?

I have no idea what you mean. I have pioneer ancestry on every single line except one great grandparent.

Not when you back back further.

[_EdGoble]

Why not? I have a sincere testimony of the blessings of not giving the church money. I've given to all kinds of wonderful things and people. I really enjoy my real Sabbath too, where I actually rest and contemplate without repetitive messages and infantile manipulation by apathetic people who pretend to be my friends.

Well, more power to you in your choices.

I'm not disturbed by apathetic hypocrites who pretend to be my friend, as I know they do. I'm just called to serve those people.

[_EdGoble]

The Lord's Anointed are men, Ed. Men. Humans. They're born, they die. They can call themselves Ascended Masters, Gods, Angels, the Justice League, but it doesn't make any difference. Their accomplishment is that they have risen high in a bureaucracy. That's just like any political or business leader. That's why they have to hire all kinds of consultants and attorneys, because they really don't have a clue. They have to get people to tell them what to do. They have their priesthood, they have the seer stones, they have the Holy of Holies, all the keys, but they can't figure it out. I am so not impressed. Your loyalty is tribal, it's a matter of identity. You would be a good soldier and follow a Boy King. I can admire that but it's a tragedy that it's so misplaced, because it is. You're like an Erwin Rommel of Mormonism. I don't think I need to spell that out but will if you require it.

I'm proud to be associated with people who made their reputations without deceiving people and exploiting the cultural conditioning of generations of innocent strangers. But these are people who don't control billion dollar corporations and pretend to have met Jesus. So my standards are somewhat different.

They hire attorneys and consultants to best navigate things in the environment they find themselves in. It is a 21st century manifestation of knowing how critical their mission is and how they spare no expense to try to make it successful. They are the stewards over a large enterprise that they are not the owners of, but they are accountable to the Owner. If they fail or have failed in anything, they did it with all their hearts, might mind and strength, and as Holland says, Jesus loves broken things. Nobody said they are supermen, but they are in fact subjects of he who is the true Super-man, and if anyone is responsible for the state of things, he is, but apparently, he thought it important enough to allow it to be this way for it to be this way. There is no fundamental deception here. There is just people doing their best, as people who are genuine always do.

[_EdGoble]

Not when you back back further.

Fair enough, but they are dependent on me for their Temple work to get done. And so, in that sense, even those people are dependent on the legacy of my more immediate ancestors.

[_EdGoble]

You're like an Erwin Rommel of Mormonism. I don't think I need to spell that out but will if you require it.

Oh, by the way, no, there is no need to spell this out for me. I know precisely what you think you are saying. But no, the analogy doesn't hold at all.

[_Maksutov]

The Lord's Anointed are men, Ed. Men. Humans. They're born, they die. They can call themselves Ascended Masters, Gods, Angels, the Justice League, but it doesn't make any difference. Their accomplishment is that they have risen high in a bureaucracy. That's just like any political or business leader. That's why they have to hire all kinds of consultants and attorneys, because they really don't have a clue. They have to get people to tell them what to do. They have their priesthood, they have the seer stones, they have the Holy of Holies, all the keys, but they can't figure it out. I am so not impressed. Your loyalty is tribal, it's a matter of identity. You would be a good soldier and follow a Boy King. I can admire that but it's a tragedy that it's so misplaced, because it is. You're like an Erwin Rommel of Mormonism. I don't think I need to spell that out but will if you require it.

I'm proud to be associated with people who made their reputations without deceiving people and exploiting the cultural conditioning of generations of innocent strangers. But these are people who don't control billion dollar corporations and pretend to have met Jesus. So my standards are somewhat different.

They hire attorneys and consultants to best navigate things in the environment they find themselves in. It is a 21st century manifestation of knowing how critical their mission is and how they spare no expense to try to make it successful. They are the stewards over a large enterprise that they are not the owners of, but they are accountable to the Owner. If they fail or have failed in anything, they did it with all their hearts, might mind and strength, and as Holland says, Jesus loves broken things. Nobody said they are supermen, but they are in fact subjects of he who is the true Super-man, and if anyone is responsible for the state of things, he is, but apparently, he thought it important enough to allow it to be this way for it to be this way. There is no fundamental deception here. There is just people doing their best, as people who are genuine always do.

Yet all of the other churches that showed the same fallibilities were declared abominations, to be discarded, not reformed. They were broken things who tried with all of their hearts, too. The Church of Joseph Smith is special above all of the other Christianities, past and present, because Smith said so. And the same argument has been made of thousands of sects and religions.

I suspect that your transhumanist interests might be related to what was once referred to as a doctrine of external exaltation. That was one of the beliefs that drew me to the Church in the first place. It was quite shocking and disturbing, but ultimately very significant, when we were told that "I'm not sure that we teach that", "It's more a couplet than anything else". The very leader of the church, either dismissing or lying about a belief very dear to me. His cavalier dismissal of so much of the Mountain Meadows atrocity was another teaching moment. All of my respect for the church leadership left. I still love the people, they are still my family, friends and neighbors. I don't judge them by the Hinckleys and Packers and Dunns, or even by Joseph Smith. I love them for who they are, including their eccentricities and errors. I've learned that Mormons are at their best when they're relational, not conceptual. The weakness of their concepts requires liberal amounts of social glue, reinforcement and shunning to maintain. That has some serious costs.

[_Maksutov]

You're like an Erwin Rommel of Mormonism. I don't think I need to spell that out but will if you require it.

Oh, by the way, no, there is no need to spell this out for me. I know precisely what you think you are saying. But no, the analogy doesn't hold at all.

Well, I certainly hope you won't find yourself alone in a room with a loaded pistol.

[_EdGoble]

I suspect that your transhumanist interests might be related to what was once referred to as a doctrine of external exaltation. That was one of the beliefs that drew me to the Church in the first place. It was quite shocking and disturbing, but ultimately very significant, when we were told that "I'm not sure that we teach that", "It's more a couplet than anything else". The very leader of the church, either dismissing or lying about a belief very dear to me. His cavalier dismissal of so much of the Mountain Meadows atrocity was another teaching moment. All of my respect for the church leadership left. I still love the people, they are still my family, friends and neighbors. I don't judge them by the Hinckleys and Packers and Dunns, or even by Joseph Smith. I love them for who they are, including their eccentricities and errors. I've learned that Mormons are at their best when they're relational, not conceptual. The weakness of their concepts requires liberal amounts of social glue, reinforcement and shunning to maintain. That has some serious costs.

Luckily, I don't have to defend other people's flaws. I am not interested in Joseph Smith per se, but the source of the message that he presented, so that I can get the same essential message from the same source. This is the flaw in finding flaws in Joseph Smith. You find the flaws, and you overlook the essentials of the purpose for which he was called, and the purpose of the message that he preached in all of its flaws.

Another Japanese quote is in order: "Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought." --Matsu Basho

I don't follow Joseph Smith. I seek for what he sought. This is the grand flaw in all Anti-Mormonism. You seek to judge them by the mortal weaknesses. I seek what transcends them and get to the source of all that. My loyalty to these people only has to do with who they were and are serving, because loyalty to them is by extension loyalty to what transcends them. If you can't see that, then that is a sad thing.

I realize that you can't see beyond the fact that these people cover things up, but it was in their heart to protect and defend, not to deceive, although they could not really separate the two cleanly.
I can't separate cleanly the fact that Donald Trump gropes people from the fact that he wants to be friends with Russia and avoid World War III, when Hillary would gladly get us into that war for the sake of the MIC and for the sake of oil interests in Syria. It's a package deal if I want Trump in power. I can't cleanly separate the man from the flaws. If I am more interested in his foreign policy getting implemented, I have to look past his flaws, and hold my nose and vote.

It was in the heart of Joseph Smith to keep the commandment of plural marriage, not to be a womanizer. It was in the heart of Joseph Smith to keep the commandment, not to lie to claim that he wasn't doing it. You can't cleanly separate always the reality of what you are forced into when sometimes there is a more important and weighty consideration. I'm sorry that you don't believe that certain things are weighty matters. If it were not for their weight, then there would have been no ugliness to what was entered in to, when the circumstances thrust a person into an ugly matter, when they had to make a certain choice that involved a less-than-desirable thing such as a lie. I don't have to defend a lie, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that life is full of complex choices where a choice is sometimes a package deal with things attached that we don't like.

It was not in the heart of Packer to conceal Church history, but it was in his heart to protect the faith of the Church. He saw the concealment as a necessary evil for good. Nobody needs to defend the evil, but you don't seem to see that his heart was not in it for evil.

I cannot separate the fact that a man that invades my home will likely end up dead if he tries to hurt my family. I wouldn't want to take his life, but the circumstances may force it if I am forced to defend my family. But if I have to defend my home, I may have to do something I didn't want to do.

If someone's spouse is prone to get cancer because of a family history of it in the genes, and a person knows it when entering into a marriage, they may face loss of a spouse later because of the health problems that are bound to be the result. Yet they may choose to marry anyway because they know it is the right thing to do, yet the other part of the package is that the genes are passed down yet again. But they then once again have this other thing attached to this choice that they wish was not attached to it. But the package deal is what it is. You can take the package deal, or you can leave it. You can't separate the package cleanly.

So this simple-minded thing from you about the Hinkley's and the Packers and the Joseph Smith's of the world that do things that you don't like because the choice is bigger than pure deception or pure lust or whatever doesn't really fly. And I don't really have to be an apologist to see that. I'm sorry that you judge the Church by those complexities. That to me is sad that perhaps you threw away the course that you were on because of these kinds of choices that people are faced with.

[_Maksutov]

I suspect that your transhumanist interests might be related to what was once referred to as a doctrine of external exaltation. That was one of the beliefs that drew me to the Church in the first place. It was quite shocking and disturbing, but ultimately very significant, when we were told that "I'm not sure that we teach that", "It's more a couplet than anything else". The very leader of the church, either dismissing or lying about a belief very dear to me. His cavalier dismissal of so much of the Mountain Meadows atrocity was another teaching moment. All of my respect for the church leadership left. I still love the people, they are still my family, friends and neighbors. I don't judge them by the Hinckleys and Packers and Dunns, or even by Joseph Smith. I love them for who they are, including their eccentricities and errors. I've learned that Mormons are at their best when they're relational, not conceptual. The weakness of their concepts requires liberal amounts of social glue, reinforcement and shunning to maintain. That has some serious costs.

Luckily, I don't have to defend other people's flaws. I am not interested in Joseph Smith per se, but the source of the message that he presented, so that I can get the same essential message from the same source. This is the flaw in finding flaws in Joseph Smith. You find the flaws, and you overlook the essentials of the purpose for which he was called, and the purpose of the message that he preached in all of its flaws.

Another Japanese quote is in order: "Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Seek what they sought." --Matsu Basho

I don't follow Joseph Smith. I seek for what he sought. This is the grand flaw in all Anti-Mormonism. You seek to judge them by the mortal weaknesses. I seek what transcends them and get to the source of all that. My loyalty to these people only has to do with who they were and are serving, because loyalty to them is by extension loyalty to what transcends them. If you can't see that, then that is a sad thing.

I realize that you can't see beyond the fact that these people cover things up, but it was in their heart to protect and defend, not to deceive, although they could not really separate the two cleanly.
I can't separate cleanly the fact that Donald Trump gropes people from the fact that he wants to be friends with Russia and avoid World War III, when Hillary would gladly get us into that war for the sake of the MIC and for the sake of oil interests in Syria. It's a package deal if I want Trump in power. I can't cleanly separate the man from the flaws.

It was in the heart of Joseph Smith to keep the commandment of plural marriage, not to be a womanizer. It was in the heart of Joseph Smith to keep the commandment, not to lie to claim that he wasn't doing it. You can't cleanly separate always the reality of what you are forced into when sometimes there is a more important and weighty consideration. I'm sorry that you don't believe that certain things are weighty matters. If it were not for their weight, then there would have been no ugliness to what was entered in to, when the circumstances thrust a person into an ugly matter, when they had to make a certain choice that involved a less-than-desirable thing such as a lie. I don't have to defend a lie, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that life is full of complex choices where a choice is sometimes a package deal with things attached that we don't like.

It was not in the heart of Packer to conceal Church history, but it was in his heart to protect the faith of the Church. He saw the concealment as a necessary evil for good. Nobody needs to defend the evil, but you don't seem to see that his heart was not in it for evil.

I cannot separate the fact that a man that invades my home will likely end up dead if he tries to hurt my family. I wouldn't want to take his life, but the circumstances may force it if I am forced to defend my family. But if I have to defend my home, I may have to do something I didn't want to do.

If someone's spouse is prone to get cancer because of a family history of it in the genes, and a person knows it when entering into a marriage, they may face loss of a spouse later because of the health problems that are bound to be the result. Yet they may choose to marry anyway because they know it is the right thing to do, yet the other part of the package is that the genes are passed down yet again. But they then once again have this other thing attached to this choice that they wish was not attached to it. But the package deal is what it is. You can take the package deal, or you can leave it. You can't separate the package cleanly.

So this simple-minded thing from you about the Hinkley's and the Packers and the Joseph Smith's of the world that do things that you don't like because the choice is bigger than pure deception or pure lust or whatever doesn't really fly. And I don't really have to be an apologist to see that. I'm sorry that you judge the Church by those complexities. That to me is sad that perhaps you threw away the course that you were on because of these kinds of choices that people are faced with.

The worst part of religion is when it induces good people to defend lies and deception, as you've just done. This is not about my simplicity. It's about the lies of Hinckley, Smith and many others. If Smith doesn't matter, why did he begin the church? If he didn't have authority, why is it stated in every GC that he did? If it isn't really the church of Jesus Christ, why do they call themselves that? Why all the obsession about who baptized and conferred the priesthood on who? You can't have it both ways.

You can pretend this is due to my simplicity as if the lies of these people are somehow my fault. Really, Ed? I'm the one at fault here? I don't think so. No amount of sophistry and burden shifting is going to produce the ruins of Zarahemla or the original golden plates. Those were inventions of Smith. It's actually simple of you to deny it. It's really easy to claim that you're a seeker like Smith but you won't avail yourself of studying the many other religious enterprises in our species' history, and the serious implications they have for the specialness, let alone the veracity, of Mormonism. You really aren't trying very hard. You find ways to retreat and you have to invite in realms of pseudoscience to try to keep "Anti-Mormonism" at bay. I am not an Anti-Mormon, Ed. I'm anti-delusion, anti-lies. And if Mormonism happens to be full of those, I am compelled by my conscience and my morality to point those out. And I do.

[_EdGoble]

Really, Ed? I'm the one at fault here? I don't think so.

You want really, seriously, intend to put the burden of the choice of where your life is going on the brethren? Yes, indeed. Really. You are, really, truly, responsible for your own choice. As much as an alcoholic is responsible for a choice. Talk about burden shifting. Sorry. That one REALLY doesn't fly. And rejection of the pure and logic of what I have just presented says a lot about the lack of willingness of ex-Mormons to accept responsibility for their own choices. Sorry, yes, you are responsible for your own eventual loss of exaltation if you don't come back to the Church. That is your own doing. You have the choice in spite of Packer and Hinckley.