If plates then God

[MG 2.0]

MG 20, what you wrote in your summary is not a deep understanding at all of what has been posted in this thread.

They’re bullet points. I’m sure you and others can go deeper.

What can I say? I’m a superficial guy.

But there are a lot of bullet points. Gotta’ hand that to me.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Res Ipsa already pointed out that mg didn't sum up the thread accurately, but I wanted to come back to one point especially:

At this juncture in regards to this thread a few things have ‘come out in the wash’ in regards to the views of those that don’t believe in the traditional account of the plates.

* Since there is no physical evidence of the plates available to us there is no obligation to believe....

This is nonsensical. It assumes that if plates physically existed the chain of evidence would straightforwardly go back to mg's position of belief. There are so many missing steps and issues, but the stark naïvété of his position is brought into focus by a comment gemli made, that was quoted in a previous discussion of plates:

Michael R. Loveridge, J. D. gemli
2 years ago edited

Would Joseph Smith appearing to you and showing you the gold plates be sufficient evidence for you? Or, would you be as critical and doubting of your own experience as you are of the experiences of those in LDS history? I think the latter.
------
gemli Michael R. Loveridge, J. D.
2 years ago

No, it would not be sufficient evidence to conclude that golden plates were provided by an angel. Such a claim would require a great deal more evidence than that. The "plates" would have to be examined by someone with the ability to determine their authenticity....
http://disq.us/p/2m9lti7

That really does sum it up, but it also explains, at least for me, the weird mopologetic argument that 'at least there were plates, even if they were fakes.' Mg seems to believe that even fake plates would lend credence to Smith's story. The thing is, it really, really wouldn't. In fact, it would just make Smith look worse, like a con who knew exactly what frauds he was perpetrating on his believing audience.

[Doctor Steuss]

Whatever the case may be - baby cancer.

- Doc

What one might expect in a natural world. Been through that earlier in the thread also.

Regards,
MG

If one has knowledge and understanding of the natural world, one would know that there are a myriad of biological functions which other ("lesser") organisms possess, which a powerful being could employ, which would make such a thing not expected. Then again, maybe preventing the suffering of lower lifeforms is of higher importance to the Almighty Creator, than preventing the suffering of babies.

In fact, some of those natural world biological functions are currently being researched, and exploited by medical science. Using natural laws of the natural world, mankind continually seems to outdo the power and capabilities of the Almighty Creator. Wild.

[MG 2.0]

I’ve read that. It confirms that I didn’t misrepresent what you said. As others have pointed out, you didn’t make yourself clear. Now, what’s the fail-safe for a child who was abused and had their entire adult life experience ruined by someone who exercised their free agency to abuse another, given that this life experience is supposedly an essential requirement for eternal progression? Where is the victims fail-safe and how do they regain the opportunity of an earthly life’s learning experience?

I would also like you to explain what “IHAQBKA” stands for.

Still waiting…

Sorry. I have been out/up in the mountains today. Beautiful day here in Utah with the leaves changing.

I was getting a bit frustrated with your inability to understand what I was saying a number of times and then you coming back and saying you still didn’t get it and you were confused. Finally in my response to huckleberry I decided to go ‘full blown’ and spell it out.

So I came up with a couple of extra letters to add to your IHAQ.

IHAQBKA

I have a question but know answer(s). A play on words using the word know instead of no. See if you can puzzle that one out.

In this venue with what I’m reading from Morley, Marcus, malkie, and others, it’s inappropriate to take a jab at the majority. But it is OK for Doc and others to take jabs at the minority. Whether that be me, DCP, or other active believing members of the faith that stand up for their beliefs consistently in hostile arenas.

Of which this is one. Own it.

Anyway, I’m sure none of you are going to be able to see the humor in my off the cuff creative abilities. On the whole over time I’ve seen very little evidence of humor or being able to innocently tease. I look at IHAQBKA as being categorically different than calling out names like ‘dope’, ‘hick’ and other slightly more pejorative acclamations composed of ad hominem thrown my way over time.

Earlier in the thread Res Ipsa made a list of what he called ad hominem attacks I made on him. Give me a break. I wasn’t attacking in a harmful derogatory way. Nothing near approaching ad hominem. Unless, of course, you are a very sensitive soul with very thin skin. Which I believe some here are.

That’s why I then said “Grow a pair”. This drama king stuff and drama queen shenanigans is stuff you can get away with here because you have absolutely no one that will either stop you or call you out.

And that’s the way it is.

My bullet points posted on the last page are straightforward and fair.

So IHAQ, if you’re not up to the little jab and play on words I guess you can just call me out. Whatever. Or if you don’t understand the wordplay I suppose you can ask me to explain. But you’re a big boy, and a smart man. I think you’ll figure it out.

Oh, and malkie, when you met me years ago I was a nice guy. Still am. Whatever the drama kings and queens say.

That’s it.

Cry me a river if I’ve hurt some overly sensitive souls.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Mg seems to believe that even fake plates would lend credence to Smith's story.

No. I don’t believe so. Remember, I was listing bullet points…not delving deeply into any one point. That was done during the meatier part of the thread.

I was just summarizing. And a pretty good job of doing so I might say.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

What one might expect in a natural world. Been through that earlier in the thread also.

Regards,
MG

If one has knowledge and understanding of the natural world, one would know that there are a myriad of biological functions which other ("lesser") organisms possess, which a powerful being could employ, which would make such a thing not expected. Then again, maybe preventing the suffering of lower lifeforms is of higher importance to the Almighty Creator, than preventing the suffering of babies.

In fact, some of those natural world biological functions are currently being researched, and exploited by medical science. Using natural laws of the natural world, mankind continually seems to outdo the power and capabilities of the Almighty Creator. Wild.

It would be a trip to to go back to the beginning stages of evolutionary progression and development and see how much the creator tweaked or didn’t tweak along the way. One might think that the ball may have been set in motion and things like baby cancer were the result millions of mutations down the line.

I wonder if evolution had a kind/form of free agency to go where it would. Seems so.

But yeah, baby cancer…and a whole lot of other bad stuff.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Res Ipsa already pointed out that mg didn't sum up the thread accurately…

No one has done any better so far.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Still waiting…

Sorry. I have been out/up in the mountains today. Beautiful day here in Utah with the leaves changing.

I was getting a bit frustrated with your inability to understand what I was saying a number of times and then you coming back and saying you still didn’t get it and you were confused. Finally in my response to huckleberry I decided to go ‘full blown’ and spell it out.

So I came up with a couple of extra letters to add to your IHAQ.

IHAQBKA

I have a question but know answer(s). A play on words using the word know instead of no. See if you can puzzle that one out.

In this venue with what I’m reading from Morley, Marcus, malkie, and others, it’s inappropriate to take a jab at the majority. But it is OK for Doc and others to take jabs at the minority. Whether that be me, DCP, or other active believing members of the faith that stand up for their beliefs consistently in hostile arenas.

Of which this is one. Own it.

Anyway, I’m sure none of you are going to be able to see the humor in my off the cuff creative abilities. On the whole over time I’ve seen very little evidence of humor or being able to innocently tease. I look at IHAQBKA as being categorically different than calling out names like ‘dope’, ‘hick’ and other slightly more pejorative acclamations composed of ad hominem thrown my way over time.

Earlier in the thread Res Ipsa made a list of what he called ad hominem attacks I made on him. Give me a break. I wasn’t attacking in a harmful derogatory way. Nothing near approaching ad hominem. Unless, of course, you are a very sensitive soul with very thin skin. Which I believe some here are.

That’s why I then said “Grow a pair”. This drama king stuff and drama queen shenanigans is stuff you can get away with here because you have absolutely no one that will either stop you or call you out.

And that’s the way it is.

My bullet points posted on the last page are straightforward and fair.

So IHAQ, if you’re not up to the little jab and play on words I guess you can just call me out. Whatever. Or if you don’t understand the wordplay I suppose you can ask me to explain. But you’re a big boy, and a smart man. I think you’ll figure it out.

Oh, and malkie, when you met me years ago I was a nice guy. Still am. Whatever the drama kings and queens say.

That’s it.

Cry me a river if I’ve hurt some overly sensitive souls.

Regards,
MG

Well, you called it, Morley, on every single count:

I would also like you to explain what “IHAQBKA” stands for.

I'm guessing that this is one of MG's moves to subtly disparage you, IHQ. Marcus, tagriffy, Res Ipsa, malkie, and others have repeatly pointed out this ongoing tendency. MG will neither ever own it, nor stop doing it. When he's called out on it, he tells you to grow a pair or says you have a victim mentality. After that, he'll often either claim that he's being canceled or that you're godlessly maligning all believers. This is all a part of his not inconsiderable charm.

edit: To be honest, it's not even the continuous, subtle derogation of others that bothers me. It's the disingenuousness of the denials.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Res Ipsa already pointed out that mg didn't sum up the thread accurately…

No one has done any better so far.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

When i was looking up the gemli quote i posted earlier, i ran across this below; the quotes it contains from the Reverend seem to be a very timely addition to our discussion:

I recall several discussions on our previous site about whether plates, real or fake, actually existed. I always found them fascinating, mostly because when I grew up, they absolutely integral to a Mormon youth's testimony of the 'truthfulness' of 'the Gospel,' but now, it turns out they weren't even used! What a bizarre flip!

Anyway, I always felt that grindael's various discussions on the subject lent the most credence to the idea that the 'item' always under cloth, and conveniently never quite there to see with actual eyes, was sand, or at best, a brick or an odd piece of house décor.

In looking for grindael's post about sand(!), I found this excellent discussion by Kishkumen of the place the story of the plates has in our history, which I hope he doesn't mind if I re-post. It's too good to lose to the vagaries of internet forum upkeep:

Mormonism is a very Western belief system. Indeed, every aspect of it you examine is easily interpreted as a manifestation of one or many currents of Western culture and history. It combines them in a unique way, but to say that Mormonism is simply phony is to ignore all of the ways it expresses those larger and older currents. Let's take, for example, the gold plates. Here is the single most obvious lie Joseph Smith ever told. It is also one of the most damning. Nothing about it is credible.

But the story of the discovery of the gold plates is rooted in narratives that go back to very ancient history indeed. This is what I was getting at in my last Sunstone talk that Taves neither liked nor, frankly, understood very well, as she pushed her own agenda about what "Religious Studies" is. Taves preferred to understand the gold plates through the lens of the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, when Joseph would have been much more familiar with folk magic and Freemasonry than Catholicism. She might still land on Catholicism if she were to understand Freemasonry and magic better, but that is a topic for another day.

So, yes, the gold plates were made up. But they were tailor made for a culture of sacred and magical books that was not only informed by the Bible (and this is the dominant influence, to be sure), but also by the Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses, Letters from Heaven, the gold plate of Enoch, the Emerald Tablet of Hermes Trismegistus, and the Books of Numa. Folk and esoteric religion was already open to the kind of claim Joseph was making, even if it did not actually happen in the way he said it did. For centuries people have been writing sacred or magical texts, putting the name of a famous person on them, and sending them out into the world to become someone else's scripture.

Is the Book of Mormon to be specially rejected while the fabrications and the forgeries of the Bible, circulated under names such as Daniel and Paul, are fine? Are scriptures to be rejected as important expressions of our history and culture because they were written by unknown priests, forgers, and men such as Joseph Smith? Do beliefs become bereft of value when their origins are as dubiously accurate as their contents are unhistorical?

[posted 12/2018]
Inserted from <http://mormondiscussions.com/viewtopic. ... l&start=21>

and

...It seems to me that you are forgetting that he was an established trickster who was engaging in treasure-digging schemes. His skills and his subject matter come directly from that milieu. The Book of Mormon starts off as a treasure that he and other treasure seers were looking for. The translation springs out of that, and it cannot be divorced from it. He had first to convince others that he recovered the plates. Then he eventually commits to translating them himself. Knowing that this all originated in a ruse, we should instead think it would have been strange for him to do other than he did.

http://mormondiscussions.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p1223977