Question for bomgeography about the flood

[_Themis]

Not at all. I said we have to question and inquire about our presuppositions. That is completely engaging the question. With regards to religious belief about God to the degree our reasoning depends upon a theory about God that theory must always continually be brought under question. I try to do that as best I can which is why I am not a Scientologist.

You said it in order to say someone is wrong in their assumptions of what God would do in order to defend your own beliefs. The problem is you can do this with any belief, saying we don't know the mind of God so maybe their is a reason God would do it this way. It's a very poor argument. You need to give reasons why God would do it a certain way. None of us have had God show up and tell us anything, so we are left to ourselves to decide using logic, reason, and the available evidence.

The reason I believe the things about God I believe is because it's the theory I feel best fits the data I have. (Which obviously includes both public and private phenomena and data) Yet simultaneously I put those theories under continual inquiry. Indeed the value I find in discussing such things with people who don't think like me is precisely to raise questions regarding my theories. Others may see things I miss or make me reconsider certain factors. I learn far more from people who disagree with me than people who do agree with me.

I am not aware of any good public data in favor of core LDS truth claims, and public data is the best kind, showing high degrees of reliability. Private data is highly subjective, and very poor reliability to objective truth. If you are open minded you will see like me that others use the same kind of experiences to come to different conclusions about objective truth claims.

Not quite sure what you're referring to here. I don't think I've attempted to defend the Book of Abraham here yet. I have some theories about it but I'd be the first to admit they're pretty tentative and not something I'd put a lot of trust in. The content in places is different. But realize I'm completely a fallibilist. So I don't mind being mistaken so long as I'm continually inquiring and refining my beliefs. I try to be honest about what beliefs I'm confident in and which I admit are weaker inferences.

Fallibilism is a good place to go if you cannot accept certain beliefs are false. If you mean by Fallibilism that no belief is justified.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by dual meaning here, by the way. My earlier point about God is simply that if we have a theory about how God would reveal information and have an argument that depends upon that theory then perhaps the conclusions are right or perhaps the premise is wrong. With regards to the Book of Abraham my reasoning is different than yours simply because I think God primarily works in a mediated fashion through others, that this mediated indirect work involves a necessarily fallible element, and that my conception of the plan of salvation entails a strategy of divine hiddenness where life is to learn and exercise faith.

I accept the process would not have to be perfect, but when you come up with such a poor method, God has to be quite dumb. Real translations would be much better. Joseph claims to be able to translate Egyptian hieroglyphs. We even have many examples of them and his translations of them. He bragged about it. He got it all wrong, and very wrong. When you have a communication process this bad, you may as well guess.

That entails God won't make it obvious that he is there although he will provide processes such that we can know he is there. Yet those processes will require work on our part and are not open to a kind of passive knowledge. (Knowledge that isn't easily produced and obvious so as to entail no work on our part) In turn that means I don't expect prior to the millennium any evidence such that it would be trivial to belief in the Book of Abraham or Book of Mormon. At best there will be evidence that such things are plausible. Yet the only way to know will always include good reasons to doubt and a demand to have private experiences to know. That is they include an essential element such as they are a catalyst to personal revelation.

Ah, the God wants to hide from us argument. Never could see why God would want to hide. Blind faith is not a virtue. It is one of the main tools of the fraud. You also make one argument of God not wanting it to be obvious and then another that you know. You don't know, although I can see you might have convinced yourself that you think you do.

To your final point, of course Joseph Smith had sexual encounters with women. Polygamy is well known and established. Although which women he had relations with isn't always clear.

Yes, the reason I ask is that I didn't conclude the LDS church's core truth claims are false until I had looked at the whole. I was at a point I knew I didn't know, and I wanted to. I asked one important question when looking at this and the other important issues. Does it fit more with what a God would do, or what a religious fraud would do. The sex thing fits perfectly. Joseph started his career as a glass looker. Something he didn't invent. He then used the same tools used by others to con people with the gold plates. Plates he wouldn't show the world except a few chosen followers under controlled conditions. The resulting Book of Mormon fits 19th century fiction. It make claims we know today are false, and lacks lots of evidence that should exist. Then the Book of Abraham. His claims again fit someone pretending to be able to translate. He pretend to translate the a Greek document someone fooled him with. Then a small translation of the kinderhook plates. Sexual access to women is a big one that religious fraud almost always do, and so did Joseph. In the end he fits to perfectly the religious fraud, pious or not, then someone having divine help.

[_Themis]

That's probably not at all satisfying of an answer. But that's the best I can give. I think theologically the issue inevitably pops up with anthropomorphic materialism and life after death. Once that happens then given the reality of human nature I think any implementation would lead to abuse. I'm glad it's not required anymore but I'd still want my wife to remarry if I died.

Your posts seems just a like of excuses. It also doesn't hit on the issue as I see it. You seem to be talking about Utah style polygamy, and for all the problems with it, it would be fine if it allowed equal access for both men and women to marry whomever they want. Joseph started early on after he started his religion. Well before the supposed revelation on it. He went after young girls and married women. If you read and understand the things he did to manipulate them into it, and that he did it behind most of the husbands back, and especially his wife's. I find it impossible to believe God started this, but it perfectly fits a religious fraud, as so many of his other actions do. I wonder why Joseph was the guy who had God tell him what do, but not people like Emma who suffered a lot over his husbands actions. At least Joseph in the New Testament had an angel show up to tell him Mary was pregnant from God and not some other man. Like I said in my post above, Joseph's actions are spot on what I see religious frauds doing, and then add in all the evidence against his most important claims like the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham. At this point I realize my private data(spiritual experiences and their interpretations for those not following this discussion) is probably not reliable enough to trust as accurate.

[_bomgeography]

polygamy was practiced throughout the old testament. According to God there is nothing wrong with practicing polygamy when its directed by him.

If polygamy was not practiced when it was the church would not have as many members as it does now..

[Guest]

I guess "polygamy" is really a euphemism for the problem I have with Joseph Smith, Clark. Polyamory afterlife is beside the point.

I'd also be fine with my wife remarrying after my death if she wanted. If that happens, we'll all somehow work it out in the next life—because we'll all be mature adults then, and all of our rights will be respected. And perhaps time will work differently there.

And if Joseph Smith had divorced Emma to marry a new wife, I could probably accept his failure to maintain a healthy first marriage as a human failing from which prophets are not immune. But this is not what we're talking about, in Smith's marital history.

Joseph Smith preyed on vulnerable women by abusing his spiritual authority as a religious leader for his own sexual gratification. A fourteen-year-old girl never had a chance to marry someone she loved, because her prophet took a fancy to her. There are a lot of wives there, Clark, and every one of their stories appalls me.

Do you not agree that Smith did things like that? Or do you somehow excuse him?

This is the mammoth in the room, for me. I'm happy to talk about other Mormon issues out of academic interest, but I would never want my detached discussion of those interesting points to give the impression that behavior like what I understand Smith's to have been is no big deal. It's huge.

[_Themis]

polygamy was practiced throughout the old testament. According to God there is nothing wrong with practicing polygamy when its directed by him.

Certainly not throughout, and interestingly the New Testament condemns it, and you would think Jesus would have practiced it. BY claimed he did, but provides no evidence. The issue people like you miss is about whether it is one of the many traits religious cons do.

If polygamy was not practiced when it was the church would not have as many members as it does now..

Incorrect as usual. Polygamy does not increase population growth of a group, but actually decreases it. The reason is that less men have sexual access to women, and men in charge who have most of the wives cannot have as much sex with each women as a women who has a man exclusive to her. This means more sex for her and better chances of getting pregnant.

[_Lemmie]

polygamy was practiced throughout the old testament. According to God there is nothing wrong with practicing polygamy when its directed by him.

If polygamy was not practiced when it was the church would not have as many members as it does now..

CFR.

The Theory: Polygamy enabled Mormons to “raise up righteous seed” more quickly than if they were monogamous, increasing the population to allow for better growth of the religion.

The Problem: Polygamy does not increase the number of faithful Mormons in general. It increases the number of children born to a specific male. Women can only produce a finite number of children, whether they are in polygamous or monogamous relationships. While Mormon missionaries did become famous in Britain for marrying wives and then bringing them back to Utah where they learned that there was a harem waiting for the husband, early converts were not disproportionally female. So while polygamy would not have increased the overall number of births....
https://mollymuses.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... debunking/

ETA: I see Themis made a similar point.

[_Maksutov]

polygamy was practiced throughout the old testament. According to God there is nothing wrong with practicing polygamy when its directed by him.

If polygamy was not practiced when it was the church would not have as many members as it does now..

CFR.

The Theory: Polygamy enabled Mormons to “raise up righteous seed” more quickly than if they were monogamous, increasing the population to allow for better growth of the religion.

The Problem: Polygamy does not increase the number of faithful Mormons in general. It increases the number of children born to a specific male. Women can only produce a finite number of children, whether they are in polygamous or monogamous relationships. While Mormon missionaries did become famous in Britain for marrying wives and then bringing them back to Utah where they learned that there was a harem waiting for the husband, early converts were not disproportionally female. So while polygamy would not have increased the overall number of births....
https://mollymuses.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... debunking/

ETA: I see Themis made a similar point.

The purpose is to have your particular family, your dynasty, your "seed" outproduce that of others. Not for the general population of the colony to increase. The idea is to have your family, your tribe dominate in terms of genetics in addition to other sources of power. It assumes greater social coherence will be the result, with a more potent command and control structure. It's feudalistic and elitist, but this is a system wherein Joseph was crowned a king, remember. And quite similar to how criminal organizations and cartels are structured.

[_tapirrider]

polygamy was practiced throughout the old testament. According to God there is nothing wrong with practicing polygamy when its directed by him.

If polygamy was not practiced when it was the church would not have as many members as it does now..

How about dealing with your libelous accusation of me, claiming that I hated America? Are you using DOD equipment right now to post here? Got anything to post about ancient whites in America being exterminated by wicked Indians? Still claiming there is a white caucasian DNA marker? Are you going to start up again with your advocating of white supremacy while you are still in Afghanistan on deployment with the United States Army?

[_Choyo Chagas]

The purpose is to have your particular family, your dynasty, your "seed" outproduce that of others. Not for the general population of the colony to increase. The idea is to have your family, your tribe dominate in terms of genetics in addition to other sources of power.

lions do it simpler;
"when one or more new males oust the previous male(s) associated with a pride, the conqueror(s) often kill any existing young cubs"

It's feudalistic and elitist

is there such word as lionist?
i think about 'lion house'...
"The house contains large public rooms on the ground floor with 20 bedrooms on the upper floors, and was home to as many as 12 of Young's wives, including Eliza R. Snow and many of Young's children.
The house is situated at 63 East South Temple, near the corner of South Temple and State Street, just one block east of Temple Square. It is adjacent to Young's other official residence, the Beehive House"

this is a system wherein Joseph was crowned a king, remember. And quite similar to how criminal organizations and cartels are structured.

+

[_ClarkGoble]

I think we're equivocating over what it means to be church doctrine here. I suspect some brethren have strong positions on the matter and the practical politics of that mean some ensure their views get into some manuals. I don't think that makes it a doctrine of the church.

The scriptures of both the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon passages lead readers to believe it was a global flood. But even more than that, the LDS church is built on the premise of living prophets and apostles.

Yes but it's also a foundational principle that being a prophet is not the same as being omniscient. That is a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such. So the attempt to portray every interpretation in a manual as "official inspired teaching" is a strawman.

So what they teach in General Conference ought to be inspired instruction to help members understand the scriptures. But that isn't really what happens, is it? What it means to be church doctrine is comparable to trying to nail jello to the wall, even with the alleged mouthpieces of the Lord trying to help us.

It must be annoying to people who wish to attack things that clearly have no revelation behind it.

I'm more confused as to where this idea that anything published by the church or stated by a church leader is to be treated as infallible. It reminds me more than anything of the phenomena of people who read bad science reporting in papers (especially on dietary stuff where the science was dubious at best) and then use that to say scientists know nothing and we can dismiss what they say on say climate change. The desire to put everything on an equal epistemic level fascinates me.

Primarily it's a desire to attack the weakest arguments that the believers typically don't even hold rather than engaging with the strongest ones. (To be fair some believers do the same thing to unbelievers but it's annoying when they do it to)