I completely disagree. The power of that book is what drove early Morminism and still drives it today. You are looking at it with a cold attempt at logic. To the people growing the religion it is anything but a cold attempt at logic.
Joseph Smith taught that the moon was inhabited by people that live to be 1000 years old?
- Thread starter sirkickyass
- Start date
I completely disagree. The power of that book is what drove early Morminism and still drives it today. You are looking at it with a cold attempt at logic. To the people growing the religion it is anything but a cold attempt at logic.
Hartsock
Banned
I kind of agree with you, but the difference is the BOM is pretty much the whole basis for the mormon religion. The Watchtower is merely a periodical filler piece, and I don't here Scientologists proclaiming their love for Dianetics. I think you are a little misguided but in theory you are correct. If that makes any sense.
I'm more interested in it because it's not a late-remembered revelation designed to make him look bad. It's proffered to make him look good. To the extent it was a fabrication, it's a fabrication designed to bolster his reputation. In my mind that means it either happened or we have evidence that the church embellishes leader histories to make them look good. Speaking of which, have you ever taken a stroll through the history of official church portraits of Smith? Dude goes from looking like wormtail in Harry Potter to looking like Paul Newman.
Most of the evidence regarding Smith's other wives is anecdotal, based on guesswork, or statements made by women who claimed to marry him but don't appear to have spent any meaningful amount of time with him (and at least one of whom married Brigham Young later). Several purported offspring have had their claims of descending from Smith blown apart by modern matrilineal DNA testing.
IMO (and I know that you know I have some degree of knowledge about church history) there is a significant probability that Smith was a little too tolerant of the polygamists as part of the early process of growing the church, not wanting to turn willing members away, and its the kind of thing that spiraled out of his control. I also think there's a smaller but still notable probability that Brigham Young (who we all know was VERY into polygamy) did a lot of work to put it into the record that Joseph Smith a polygamist as a way of legitimizing his own behavior.
In case it's not clear, I don't have a very high opinion of Young.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
The growth of Scientology? They have like 50,000 members.....
Of course, one is about moon people so it's significantly more fun to talk about. It's also something that's objectively disproveable so it feels fairer to pick on since it's not a question of faith.
Also, who's freaking out? I'm just amused by a bizarre bit of errata from a church full of bizarre errata.
Le sigh. He also says that he's been accused of having seven wives but he can only find one. He also asks for a list of all his wives because he'd like to know. To say that's not a denial of being a polygamist is a stretch.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
Kicky, why don't you just quote a bunch of McKonkie stuff? At least they came directly from his mouth.
Its funny because people have to sit and nit pick with LDS leaders so they can find fault. So just keep nit picking. But I know and most know that the Mormon faith produces some of the finest men you will ever meet.
Its funny because people have to sit and nit pick with LDS leaders so they can find fault. So just keep nit picking. But I know and most know that the Mormon faith produces some of the finest men you will ever meet.
Last edited:
Well I guess your statement could be true about the Bible too.
Using the prophet is "human excuse" is the escape clause that many religious people use when the "prophet" says something crazy or untrue. Personally, the human factor is why I don't believe in prophets at all. I don't know if there is a god or not but if GOD is my father why do I need a "middle man" to speak to my father. I am just as imperfect as so called prophets.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
The LDS is very pro-personal revelation. You don't need Bishops or Prophets to speak to God. They are only there for council,structure, etc.
A good example of this is Joseph Smith. Most faith believing people didn't believe his story because in their minds the time of personal revelation was over, or that God wouldn't speak to someone like him.
I'm a Mormon, Bean, and I don't see the nit-picking or attacking. It's an interesting story, and it doesn't seem like Kicky is using it maliciously.
But I'm not that smart, so I may just not get it.
Not logic, evidence. If the BoM has some power deriving from its truth (as opposed to other types of power, which I did not comment upon), than said power should have been lacking in organizations lacking said truth. AFAICT, the evidence does not bear this out. Now, it's certainly possible for multiple, mutually contrary religions to all have significant recruiting power, but they can't all be from their mutually contrary truths.
I hear two or three other Mormon works regularly discussed in here, as well as significant cultural traditions. Even as an outsider, I can tell there is a *lot* more to the Mormon religion than the BoM.
Some people look at a beautiful tapestry, then focus in on a thread or two that "might" be loose and start pulling to see if they can make a hole.
Some people look really close and point to spots where a thread or two don't look quite right.
Some people look at it and say "yes it's beautiful and all, but I would have used this color and done it this way, it would be better".
Others mock those coming to view the tapestry, and shame them into moving on.
Still others listen to those people and are easily swayed so they join with them.
Some people don't really even look at it at all and move on.
Some people step back and take it all in, smile and enjoy it, then slowly focus in on the details and enjoy those too as they try to understand why and how.
Some of those get bothered and leave when they don't get, or understand the answers they get.
And yet there are many that continue to enjoy said tapestry even though they may not fully understand how all of the weaves work, or where all of the threads came from.
They do not listen to the scorners and complainers, but quietly enjoy what is before them.
~JS
Some people look really close and point to spots where a thread or two don't look quite right.
Some people look at it and say "yes it's beautiful and all, but I would have used this color and done it this way, it would be better".
Others mock those coming to view the tapestry, and shame them into moving on.
Still others listen to those people and are easily swayed so they join with them.
Some people don't really even look at it at all and move on.
Some people step back and take it all in, smile and enjoy it, then slowly focus in on the details and enjoy those too as they try to understand why and how.
Some of those get bothered and leave when they don't get, or understand the answers they get.
And yet there are many that continue to enjoy said tapestry even though they may not fully understand how all of the weaves work, or where all of the threads came from.
They do not listen to the scorners and complainers, but quietly enjoy what is before them.
~JS
How many Mormons were there in the 1870s?
Kicky may really have questions... but it's more like he thinks he knows the answer and is just trying to lead other people that direction with him.
Browy just likes to argue against it in any way he can. He'll nit pick if need be, or "change the flow" of his words if proven wrong because you can't fully prove wrong something that keeps changing.
Just the way I see it. Neither will change their minds from this conversation... but who knows who else might?
It's possible to appreciate the tapestry depicting a dragon without accepting dragons are real.
Beantown
Well-Known Member
What was the population and the technology in the 1870's....
Also it was 90,000........almost double
See, I would interpret that as people categorizing my positions in a specific box, and then having to adapt when it turns out I meant something else entirely. For example, I don't need to hold not-A to say that an argument for A is very poor.
Stifle Tower
Punch Bowl Re-Filler
Let's make a bet...if Scientology grows by 5 million members in the next 100 years, I'll buy you a case of your favorite beverage of choice.
What was the population and the technology in the 1870's....
Also it was 90,000........almost double
Considering the amount of money it takes to get into Scientology, I'd say they have Mormonism beat.