If plates then God

[I Have Questions]

Forgive me, but your concept of hope is pretty narcissistic as it is entirely about your own immortality. Hope need not be grounded on such selfish ideas.

Not only that, the Mormon view of "hope", as Nelson recently reiterated, is one where he defines the way Mormons will be uplifted in immortality specifically in relation to how non-Mormons-especially those with Mormon family members!!- will be oppressed for all eternity. Who talks like that??

It's really quite creepy how much Nelson seems to relish his vision of how those who reject him will suffer. No wonder Mg thinks his disparagement of those who are different than him is acceptable. His leader has paved the way.

Mormons once had a slogan "families can be forever." Now, a more relevant slogan would be: "Mormons judge and separate families, for all eternity."

With the ominous corollary:

"family members who don't pay up will be missing certain ... parts when their body is resurrected."

The Lord has clearly taught that only men and women who are sealed as husband and wife in the temple, and who keep their covenants, will be together throughout the eternities. He said, “All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise … have an end when men are dead.”10

Thus, if we unwisely choose to live telestial laws now, we are choosing to be resurrected with a telestial body. We are choosing not to live with our families forever.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=eng

Nelson seems to be forgetting that you can have those ordinances done by proxy in the temple after you’re dead. So if you don’t join the church, no problem you can be baptised by proxy. Don’t get married in the temple? No problem, it can be done by proxy. You can choose to live telestial laws now, because some tithe paying schmuk will do your temple work in the future. Else what’s the point of temples then?

[Res Ipsa]

Seemed to me the OP was answered by the end of the first page. I do think PG's response encapsulates the discussion well.

I agree that Bushman probably wasn't really arguing that one should believe in the gold plates from an angel because it's nice to believe that angels can visit people. He was probably just observing that if you believe an angel gave Smith golden plates, for whatever other reasons, then your belief in the plates yields a nice corollary belief about miraculous things like the plates sometimes happening.

There's nothing wrong with observations like that. Mathematicians often celebrate theorems by recounting how many useful or wonderful other things they imply. They're not suggesting at all that we should believe the theorems because of how nice it would be if they were true. They're just pointing out how nice it is that they are true. It's part of understanding what a theorem means, to appreciate how much it implies.

People aren't just logic engines, however. Our brain hardware probably really just reacts to correlations, with logical implication being implemented awkwardly in software. We may not consciously invoke the pleasant implications of a belief as arguments for the belief, but the more we notice that the belief and its nice implications go together, the more I think we tend, actually, to cherish the belief because of what it implies.

The more we then dwell on how belief in plates (say) and belief in God (say) hang together so nicely, the more I suspect we come to treat the two beliefs as a package, as if each both implied and required the other. Rejoicing in "if plates, then God" slides easily into thinking "God, if and only if plates", because our brains are better at simple association than they are at logic.

You can become really convinced that the expensive rock crystals that you order each month from an online psychic are purifying the vibrations of the oxygen in your bedroom. It may start with just trying and seeing, because if the crystals work, then you'll breathe better. As you start think about the crystals doing their wonderful thing to your oxygen, you get happy thinking about breathing better. Soon the crystals have to work because you need to breathe.

It's difficult to see the discussion improving on that.

Agreed.

[Marcus]

A certain blogger weighed in last month. After posting a list of papers and interviews (all generated within his religion, by believers in his religion, published in venues controlled by his religion, dated 1991, 1999, 2001 and refreshingly, a 2023 interview), he states this

The assertion in such writing that real, tangible plates existed isn’t a mere profession of faith or an appeal to circular reason. It appeals, rather, to eyewitness testimony and other external evidence. The stuff, in other words, of which ordinary, conventional historiography is made and upon which most historical scholarship is based. Simply that. To claim othewise is either ignorant or, I think, a willfully disingenuous pretense.

Which of course, is why "ordinary, conventional historiography," "upon which most historical scholarship is based" says things like this:

According to Latter Day Saint belief, the golden plates (also called the gold plates or in some 19th-century literature, the golden Bible)[1] are the source from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_plates

(For a little more weight, any of Professor Jenkin's statements about the Book of Mormon as a non-historical document will do, but the above captures the world's opinion about this fairy tale quite well.)

'According to belief' acknowledges that the assertion that plates existed is 'a profession of faith,' nothing more. Similar to the weight given to eyewitness testimony of bigfoot, little grey aliens, Ufo probings, yeti, leprechauns, fairies, Santa Claus, the three nephites, BYU's cold fusion fiasco, lamanites who 'blossom as roses', psychics, high spy's earthquake coincidences, NDEs, DCP's dowsing experiences, Ouija board spellings, etc.

Seriously, this is a recently retired professor from BYU. It's hard to imagine who would send their children to a school with professors who openly argue that such nonsense passes a legitimate threshold for academic research the way he does. Keeping your weird little hobbies off to the side is one thing, openly arguing for such academically nonsensical approaches is quite another.

[MG 2.0]

The hope I have would be empty if not for the hope of being with family and those I love. And having that wish for everyone. To hope for a resurrection for all of mankind and each individual receiving a place in the mansions of the Father is the opposite of narcissism and/or selfishness.

In a way, it seems like the scenario that offers the best hope of an equal opportunity for all of mankind after death is firmly rooted in a reality wherein there’s no God, and no afterlife.

Easy for those of us living in a world of privilege to see it that way.

I would like to think that everyone will have equal opportunities in the long haul. So many don’t in the here and now.

As it is, having a hope that I along with everyone else will live in a state of being where we find ourselves happy forever is preferable to death and extinction.

That’s the message that Jesus brought to the world. Only a God could promise that. A real God, that is.

And that’s the rub. Was Jesus a God while all of the other gods aren’t? That is something we each have to determine on our own. And if we’re blessed/lucky enough to make that determination we want to share that with others and then hope that everyone will have that opportunity at some point in the eternal scheme of things.

Is it all wishful thinking? It can appear that way.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Not only that, the Mormon view of "hope", as Nelson recently reiterated, is one where he defines the way Mormons will be uplifted in immortality specifically in relation to how non-Mormons-especially those with Mormon family members!!- will be oppressed for all eternity. Who talks like that??

It's really quite creepy how much Nelson seems to relish his vision of how those who reject him will suffer. No wonder Mg thinks his disparagement of those who are different than him is acceptable. His leader has paved the way.

Mormons once had a slogan "families can be forever." Now, a more relevant slogan would be: "Mormons judge and separate families, for all eternity."

With the ominous corollary:

"family members who don't pay up will be missing certain ... parts when their body is resurrected."

The Lord has clearly taught that only men and women who are sealed as husband and wife in the temple, and who keep their covenants, will be together throughout the eternities. He said, “All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise … have an end when men are dead.”10

Thus, if we unwisely choose to live telestial laws now, we are choosing to be resurrected with a telestial body. We are choosing not to live with our families forever.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=eng

Nelson seems to be forgetting that you can have those ordinances done by proxy in the temple after you’re dead. So if you don’t join the church, no problem you can be baptised by proxy. Don’t get married in the temple? No problem, it can be done by proxy. You can choose to live telestial laws now, because some tithe paying schmuk will do your temple work in the future. Else what’s the point of temples then?

You seem to be saying that there is no joy and happiness in living the gospel and abiding by its precepts in the here and now. That if people (such as yourself?) choose to live a telestial law that is preferable to living a higher law.

Believe it or not, there are folks that are willing and desirous to live a higher law in the here and now and find that preferable to living some version of the telestial law.

There are many folks that are also willing to pay an honest tithe knowing they are helping build up the kingdom of God. Calling them schmucks says more about you than it does about them.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=eng

Nelson seems to be forgetting that you can have those ordinances done by proxy in the temple after you’re dead. So if you don’t join the church, no problem you can be baptised by proxy. Don’t get married in the temple? No problem, it can be done by proxy. You can choose to live telestial laws now, because some tithe paying schmuk will do your temple work in the future. Else what’s the point of temples then?

You seem to be saying that there is no joy and happiness in living the gospel and abiding by its precepts in the here and now. That if people (such as yourself?) choose to live a telestial law that is preferable to living a higher law.

Believe it or not, there are folks that are willing and desirous to live a higher law in the here and now and find that preferable to living some version of the telestial law.

There are many folks that are also willing to pay an honest tithe knowing they are helping build up the kingdom of God. Calling them schmucks says more about you than it does about them.

Regards,
MG

No, you are missing the point. Nelson's threats that people who don't support his church, pay money into his hoard, and worship according to his expectations, regardless of their beliefs in the atonement, are empty and negative.

Forgive me, but your concept of hope is pretty narcissistic as it is entirely about your own immortality. Hope need not be grounded on such selfish ideas.

Not only that, the Mormon view of "hope", as Nelson recently reiterated, is one where he defines the way Mormons will be uplifted in immortality specifically in relation to how non-Mormons-especially those with Mormon family members!!- will be oppressed for all eternity. Who talks like that??

It's really quite creepy how much Nelson seems to relish his vision of how those who reject him will suffer. No wonder Mg thinks his disparagement of those who are different than him is acceptable. His leader has paved the way.

Mormons once had a slogan "families can be forever." Now, a more relevant slogan would be: "Mormons judge and separate families, for all eternity."...

[MG 2.0]

No, you are missing the point.

No, I’m not.

Nelson seems to be forgetting that you can have those ordinances done by proxy in the temple after you’re dead. So if you don’t join the church, no problem you can be baptised by proxy. Don’t get married in the temple? No problem, it can be done by proxy. You can choose to live telestial laws now, because some tithe paying schmuk will do your temple work in the future. Else what’s the point of temples then?

You seem to be saying that there is no joy and happiness in living the gospel and abiding by its precepts in the here and now. That if people (such as yourself?) choose to live a telestial law that is preferable to living a higher law.

Believe it or not, there are folks that are willing and desirous to live a higher law in the here and now and find that preferable to living some version of the telestial law.

There are many folks that are also willing to pay an honest tithe knowing they are helping build up the kingdom of God. Calling them schmucks says more about you than it does about them.

It’s not the first time I’ve heard the ‘fix it later’ argument. As if there was something more preferable than living the gospel while in the flesh.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

'According to belief' acknowledges that the assertion that plates existed is 'a profession of faith,' nothing more. Similar to the weight given to eyewitness testimony of bigfoot, little grey aliens, Ufo probings, yeti, leprechauns, fairies, Santa Claus, the three nephites, BYU's cold fusion fiasco, lamanites who 'blossom as roses', psychics, high spy's earthquake coincidences, NDEs, DCP's dowsing experiences, Ouija board spellings, etc.

Apples and oranges.

Both fruits but very different in some respects.

A good part of this thread has gone into the details as to how the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated are very different than comparing them with Santa Claus, Bigfoot, etc.

I’m not going to rehash all that has been said except to say that this apples to oranges comparison is tenuous at best.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

No, you are missing the point.

No, I’m not.

IHAQ:
Nelson seems to be forgetting that you can have those ordinances done by proxy in the temple after you’re dead. So if you don’t join the church, no problem you can be baptised by proxy. Don’t get married in the temple? No problem, it can be done by proxy. You can choose to live telestial laws now, because some tithe paying schmuk will do your temple work in the future. Else what’s the point of temples then?

MG: You seem to be saying that there is no joy and happiness in living the gospel and abiding by its precepts in the here and now. That if people (such as yourself?) choose to live a telestial law that is preferable to living a higher law.

Believe it or not, there are folks that are willing and desirous to live a higher law in the here and now and find that preferable to living some version of the telestial law.

There are many folks that are also willing to pay an honest tithe knowing they are helping build up the kingdom of God. Calling them schmucks says more about you than it does about them.

It’s not the first time I’ve heard the ‘fix it later’ argument. As if there was something more preferable than living the gospel while in the flesh.

Regards,
MG

Whoosh.

What Nelson defines as "telestial" matches no non-Mormon Christian's definition, nor anyone else. But the world is full of good people who believe in the Atonement. Very few break up families like the Mormons do.

So, yes. Irony. Right over your head.

[Marcus]

'According to belief' acknowledges that the assertion that plates existed is 'a profession of faith,' nothing more. Similar to the weight given to eyewitness testimony of bigfoot, little grey aliens, Ufo probings, yeti, leprechauns, fairies, Santa Claus, the three nephites, BYU's cold fusion fiasco, lamanites who 'blossom as roses', psychics, high spy's earthquake coincidences, NDEs, DCP's dowsing experiences, Ouija board spellings, etc.

Apples and oranges.

Both fruits but very different in some respects.

A good part of this thread has gone into the details as to how the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated are very different than comparing them with Santa Claus, Bigfoot, etc.

I’m not going to rehash all that has been said except to say that this apples to oranges comparison is tenuous at best.

Regards,
MG

? You haven't been reading this thread, then.
Honor picked this out as nicely representative, maybe you missed it:

Seemed to me the OP was answered by the end of the first page. I do think PG's response encapsulates the discussion well.

I agree that Bushman probably wasn't really arguing that one should believe in the gold plates from an angel because it's nice to believe that angels can visit people. He was probably just observing that if you believe an angel gave Smith golden plates, for whatever other reasons, then your belief in the plates yields a nice corollary belief about miraculous things like the plates sometimes happening.

There's nothing wrong with observations like that. Mathematicians often celebrate theorems by recounting how many useful or wonderful other things they imply. They're not suggesting at all that we should believe the theorems because of how nice it would be if they were true. They're just pointing out how nice it is that they are true. It's part of understanding what a theorem means, to appreciate how much it implies.

People aren't just logic engines, however. Our brain hardware probably really just reacts to correlations, with logical implication being implemented awkwardly in software. We may not consciously invoke the pleasant implications of a belief as arguments for the belief, but the more we notice that the belief and its nice implications go together, the more I think we tend, actually, to cherish the belief because of what it implies.

The more we then dwell on how belief in plates (say) and belief in God (say) hang together so nicely, the more I suspect we come to treat the two beliefs as a package, as if each both implied and required the other. Rejoicing in "if plates, then God" slides easily into thinking "God, if and only if plates", because our brains are better at simple association than they are at logic.

You can become really convinced that the expensive rock crystals that you order each month from an online psychic are purifying the vibrations of the oxygen in your bedroom. It may start with just trying and seeing, because if the crystals work, then you'll breathe better. As you start think about the crystals doing their wonderful thing to your oxygen, you get happy thinking about breathing better. Soon the crystals have to work because you need to breathe.

It's difficult to see the discussion improving on that.