Bound for Glory

God bless America and our Militaries!!! Show your patriotic feelings to America. USA Patriotic and Armed Forces Charms are great way to show loyalty and support for your country and for people, which serve this country.

Yhanks you
dd918dee9d8476b0d9af26bb602f9816

Hi, my sites:
ef85cb4b7b11ad33062356eb97df962c

sedateness sclerodermic colloquialize foreknowingly coryphaenid ureterectasis assignee dividualism
http://www.cronullasurf.com.au/ >Cronulla Surfschool
http://theatrewesternsprings.com

nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk

sdam kvartiru shartashskiy rynok gostinichnye kvartiry goroda ekaterinburga cena kvartir tomske arenda kvartir g omsk kvartira novyy gorodok prodam kvartiru g lyubercy dolgosrochnaya arenda kvartir moskva pushkin peterburg kvartiry kvartiry gorod klin

Great boys
fa5dc7a3a3928c39fb0fde5a660ca50b

Mayan presents a view of the Family Romance aspects of the CK

that underline what an effective social control mechanism it is.

Ostracism is a most powerful sanction. the conscious and unconscious desire to avoid eternal separation from one's family is a great motivator to say with everyone else "the church is true"

and not to contradict one's parents and relatives and church leaders when they tell you that an ordinary funeral document is the story of Abraham.

j max wilson said:

"The best we can do with the time we do allot to response is probably just to testify. I know that Jesus Christ is real and is the Messiah and Savior of the World. That Joseph Smith was His true prophet. That the Book of Mormon and Bible are inspired books that communicate the Holy Spirit to those who read them and experiment upon their words. I have prophesied and worked miracles in the name of Jesus under the direction of that Holy Spirit. I have hope in the resurrection granted to all by Christ, and faith in the Grace he affords me as I try to keep my oaths of submission to Him. May the Holy Spirit touch your hearts. God bless."

while, i appreciate your sincerity. i cant help but laugh when thinking that the best you can do is to testify. and then, you follow with things that you believe, and describe them as things you know. along with the standard cliches of a mormon testimony we get beliefs stated as facts.

it is silly tho think this is the best you can do. as silly as saying that the best mormons can do to help the poor, their god and humanity is to build a shopping mall.

should you share your thoughts and call it a testimony? absolutely. should the mormon church build a 2 billion dollar mall? sure, why not? they got the jack for it. though, it is a stretch to say that either is the best that can be done.

the problem with these mormon testimonies, especially as they relate to the celestial kingdom, is the certainty that mormon have regarding that celestial reward. because it is family based, it becomes the source of divisions and voids in this life more often than it serves to unite families. its all fine and dandy until a child or spouse decides that the mormon path is not ideal. after all, by not going to the mormon church and doing things the mormon way one is turning their back on family forever and ever and ever and ever. no celestial kingdom for that child or spouse. given that level of intimidation, it is no wonder that the mormon church gets a cult label.

off topic - i have pointed this out many times on here - the authors at on faith do not choose their own titles. so, if you have an issue with any of the titles you should ping the hosts as they pick the titles and may change them if an author is featured on the main page.

j max wilson said:

"The best we can do with the time we do allot to response is probably just to testify. I know that Jesus Christ is real and is the Messiah and Savior of the World. That Joseph Smith was His true prophet. That the Book of Mormon and Bible are inspired books that communicate the Holy Spirit to those who read them and experiment upon their words. I have prophesied and worked miracles in the name of Jesus under the direction of that Holy Spirit. I have hope in the resurrection granted to all by Christ, and faith in the Grace he affords me as I try to keep my oaths of submission to Him. May the Holy Spirit touch your hearts. God bless."

while, i appreciate your sincerity. i cant help but laugh when thinking that the best you can do is to testify. and then, you follow with things that you believe, and describe them as things you know. along with the standard cliches of a mormon testimony we get beliefs stated as facts.

it is silly tho think this is the best you can do. as silly as saying that the best mormons can do to help the poor, their god and humanity is to build a shopping mall.

should you share your thoughts and call it a testimony? absolutely. should the mormon church build a 2 billion dollar mall? sure, why not? they got the jack for it. though, it is a stretch to say that either is the best that can be done.

the problem with these mormon testimonies, especially as they relate to the celestial kingdom, is the certainty that mormon have regarding that celestial reward. because it is family based, it becomes the source of divisions and voids in this life more often than it serves to unite families. its all fine and dandy until a child or spouse decides that the mormon path is not ideal. after all, by not going to the mormon church and doing things the mormon way one is turning their back on family forever and ever and ever and ever. no celestial kingdom for that child or spouse. given that level of intimidation, it is no wonder that the mormon church gets a cult label.

off topic - i have pointed this out many times on here - the authors at on faith do not choose their own titles. so, if you have an issue with any of the titles you should ping the hosts as they pick the titles and may change them if an author is featured on the main page.

JD: regarding Givens' book By the Hand of mormon

Givens and Bushman are respected historians, and of course write reasoned and thorough books.

In reading reviews of Givens' book, it appears to be in his general quality line. As I understand it, he does cite evidence that he believes is compatible with the BoM. Good debate.

from a fair review at this web site we get
http://www.cesnur.org/2002/mi_givens.htm

Very few historians today maintain a strictly positivist approach and are interested in passing judgement whether a religious narrative such as Joseph Smith’s is empirically true or false. Most historians are much more interested in its meaning, historical function, and consequences.

I, Henry James, have been more interested in whether we can establish whether the BoM is an account of "what actually happened" in the Americas between 600 bc and 421 ad.

a NYTImes review, also pretty fair, is here

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503E0D8163AF93BA2575BC0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

as far as i can tell, Givens' book doesn't address whether Smith's version of Heaven is True or Verifiable. I stand by my above characterizations of a belief in Heaven, whether Mormon or non-mormon.

I don't think any of us would maintain that we can "prove" that the Celestial kingdom exists. And I do believe that to accept its Truth is credulous. Clearly most Mormons believe it is NOT credulous.

Max

I don't believe i ever said that momons are "totally irratiioal imbecles." the sainted mother and lovely brother of my private secreatary, who is typing these notes for me as he is sitting on my lap, were/are devout mormons.

in most of their lives they are/were quite rational.

billions of people hold a belief in heaven. i believe THIS belief to be irrational. lots of people think their wife is the most beautiful woman in the world. that belief is also usually irrational, though endearing.
most primariy rational people believe irrational things as well. a common and human malady.

Max
Intriguing.

WHAT is the "evidence" that the Heaven described by Smith exists. Other than that Smith said it and many believe it (which, as I am sure you know, is NOT Evidence.

You and others are free to believe things without evidence. I am free not to. I am just stating a fact: there is no evidence for heaven, the mormon version or any other.

John says Oxford has evidence. Let us put it out on the table and discuss its reliability.

Evidence for Heaven? I would be stunned. But show me.

What makes you think I am not THE Henry james? Dead people like Moroni spoke to joseph Smith, why can t Henry James speak to you and other mortals? can you prove that i am not indeed the Real, dead, henry james speaking to you? don t you believe such things are possible?

it is my own father, Henry james sr, that i speak of who was a swedenborgian.

James,

I would like to second brother Max. You know Oxford University Press recently published a book that made a strong case that there was evidence for Mormon belief (By the Hand of Mormon). Oxford may publish works that are wrong, but not works that are stupid and nonsensical.

I am no longer able to regularly participate here because of some new projects I am working on, but I may post a few things here and there. Until then, Peace out James.

Jd1

Henry,

You and I both know that while there are some who believe in Mormonism simply out of tradition, having been born into it, people in general are at least partially rational; contrary to what you imply, those who truly believe in the admittedly extraordinary claims of Joseph Smith do not believe so "without evidence," neither do they believe it just because it has been said. They are not completely irrational and you know it. They simply have accepted or been convinced by evidence that you either reject or do not find credible within the interpretive framework in which you have chosen to place your faith.

We may accept something, such as the scheme of Heaven elucidated here by sister Flake, because Joseph Smith said it and we believe he is a prophet, but you and I both know that we do not accept him as a prophet without any evidence (whether or not you accept that evidence, or you believe it is trumped by additional evidence is another matter). To claim that we accept such things without any evidence is a dishonest caricature, and you know it is.

You should be charitable enough to acknowledge that we are not the completely irrational imbeciles your comments on this and other threads seem imply, even if we disagree about the evidence.

Parenthetically, may I ask if the fact that Henry James' father, Henry James Sr., was a Swedenborgian theologian had anything to do with your choice of pseudonym, or if it is just serendipity?

Take care brother "James." The Church is true despite your disbelief.

Max
thank you for your good works, and for your goodness as a human being.

my method is an Occam like scientific method. also kind of like a legal proceeding.

i don't believe things are true unless they have been demonstrated to be so. i surely don't assume something is true just because *someone* says it is.

if someone says the stock market went down 1,000 points today, i check it in 3-4 papers.

in other words, extraordinary stories require more verification than when someone says it is 70 degrees out and it feels like it is.

Smith's stories are the MOST extraordinary stories. About the truth of his version of heaven, there is not, not can ever be we suspect, any evidence one way or another.

it COULD be true. Unicorns COULD also exist.

But to believe without evidence such a story is credulous to the extreme.

Even more so because Smith had a widespread reputation as unreliable. I didn't make that up. It is throughout the accepted history of his time and life.

So, to ask someone to believe an extraordinary story told by a man of dubious reputation because you have a burning in your chest is non sensical.

It is perfectly fine for you to believe it if it gives you comfort. I don 't want to ruin your happiness.

love
henry

(don't worry about me, i have a good time being here, and since i am dead, i have all the time in the world. but thank you for your concern.)

Henry, James, &c,

In science and history there are facts, there are perceptions, and then there are models, frameworks, and theories that we construct to explain those facts and justify those perceptions. People may come up with different models to explain the same set of data points. And as long as the model accounts for the data or explains why the data is not what it seems, it could very well be true. As a matter of convenience we use Occam's razor as a way to choose between one framework and another when both of them preserve the data, but Occam's razor is not a flawless guide to identifying truth. The truth can, at times, very well be more complicated than the simplest explanation.

Just because your model explains the known facts does not mean that the evidence is "incontrovertible" and that rational beings must accept your framework as true. Certain philosophical views, personal perceptions and experiences provide the framework around which you build your model to explain the facts. Your position does not derive directly from the facts themselves, even if it must acknowledge them, but from the ideas in which you have placed your faith. In other words, the ideas in which you have placed your faith and trust endue the facts with meaning, not the other way around.

You are applying an interpretive framework to the facts as well as I am. My faith that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet commissioned by a very real God and Creator, explains the facts in a way consistent with my own experiences and reason, which compel me to accept that particular model. Your faith that Joseph Smith was a fraud and that everything he did can be explained in purely naturalistic ways explains the facts in a way that is consistent with your own claimed experience and reason. But the historical facts alone do not compel anyone to accept your framework or mine as true and the other as false.

Frankly the amount of time you all find to troll the LDS posts of the On Faith blog is staggering and kind of sad.

Many of us who have faith in Jesus Christ and in Joseph Smith as his true prophet would love to spend hours upon hours addressing your framework, dispelling myths, and exposing the difference between the facts and the interpretive framework you place upon them, but frankly we just don't have the time. We have responsibilities to family, church, and employers that just don't permit wasting too much time in intellectual grappling with apostates and antagonists in cyberspace such as yourselves. The time we do have is better spent giving support to the widows, the poor, the afflicted, the hungry, the abused and addicted among our neighbors.

The best we can do with the time we do allot to response is probably just to testify. I know that Jesus Christ is real and is the Messiah and Savior of the World. That Joseph Smith was His true prophet. That the Book of Mormon and Bible are inspired books that communicate the Holy Spirit to those who read them and experiment upon their words. I have prophesied and worked miracles in the name of Jesus under the direction of that Holy Spirit. I have hope in the resurrection granted to all by Christ, and faith in the Grace he affords me as I try to keep my oaths of submission to Him. May the Holy Spirit touch your hearts. God bless.

What's missing from the LDS discussion is that Joseph Smith could not have done that stuff all on his own. Somebody/organization wrote the stuff and provided funding. Also, the similarity of how the "Book of the Law" was found, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Koran came about should be recognized.

There has been no carbon dating on the documents presented as the "Dead Sea Scrolls" being found by a bunch of goats in a dark cave on the side of hill of a bunch of rocks. Doesn't in sound similar to how the Book of Mormon came about.

The theme all the way through has been to tell something that is totally outrageous as regards to truth, then proclaim it as truth, and brainwash people into believing it for political purposes and to manipulate their minds.

Drop the second m from "Mormon" and you get "Moron". It is not hard to imagine that as getting a chuckle from the originators.

I would just like to say a few words about all the LDS debate...

As much as a mainstream Christian would argue that LDS is made up, one must also look at the things that they do. Perhaps their doctrines are not all inspired by God. But that doesn't make it that all of it is not. Also, before we attack them for being idiots who believe in lies, we must acknowledge many of their members for keeping a clean Christian life. I know more mormons than i know Christians who truly lead a Christian life. The mormons are more enthusiastic about the scriptures than a lot of christians i know. (I am not saying this as absolute truth or that all mormons are better than all mainstream Christians, so please don't attack me on that point.)

I've heard someone tell me that LDS is a cult. That to believe in it would be to fall under the devil's grip. Well, I dont suppose that the devil will urge us to do good and urge us to follow the commandments. Do you?

Also, I know of more mainstream Christians attacking mormonism than I know of mormons attacking mainstream Christianity. Why is that? Because we don't like the fact that they havea different idea of things? Aren't we supposed to love and not be critical? Are we being too hypocritical?

Mainstream Christianity believes that to be saved, one must belive Christ as his/her savior, repent, be baptised, and live a holy life. That we are saved through the grace of the Father and the blood of Christ. Well, the mormons certainly have all those. Their church is just stricter in enforcing those practices. And somehow, they are not christians becasue they have a different idea of how God, the world, and Christ came about. What is more important here, our faith and strive toward good or gettng the nature of God right?

I hope that we will all embrace the mormons and their beliefs even if we don't agree or accept it. As Christians, we should love others as our Heavenly Father loved us. We should see deep insdie others' hearts and love them for their work, faith, and who they are as a person. No one is perfect, and we are ultimately all sinners. But even Christ sat with the sinners and embraced them. There really only is one thing...if you are a Christian, act like one. If you are not, well, then do whatever you feel like doing (hopefully something good.)

We cannot judge will end up in heaven, or even what will happen in heaven. We can only speculate and hope. But we know tht God loves us, so whatever happens is going to be good anyway.

Eric

there are about 500 stories with the same import as the Book of Abraham story, tho the BoA is about the most clearcut and dramatic.

Mormon apologists sprain their brains in the contortions used to "explain" these "problems."

If there were one or two such cases, it would still strain reason to believe the fantastic supernatural claims that Smith made over and over.

Since there are SO many fundamental questions about his honesty and reliability, the fact that ANYONE believes his supernatural claims (or even his natural claims to have been in a particular place at a particular time) is a spectacular example of willful disregard for incontrovertible evidence.

Mormonism has actually been debunked, and many LDS have left the church because of it. Read up on the history of the fraud of Joseph Smith's "Book of Abraham." He claimed that it was a (divinely aided) translation of the Egyptian heiroglyphics on a papyrus from a mummy's coffin. He said this decades before ancient Egytian writings became decipherable. Well, turns out that Joseph was either lying or deluded; once egyptologists discovered how to translate heiroglyphics, it became clear that the document Smith claimed to have translate into the "Book of Abraham" was just an ordinary, brief, ancient Egyptian funerary document which referred to some Egyptian gods and the afterlife. This is a knife through the heart of Mormonism. Not to mention many of Smith's other claims which were later proven false. It has been proven that Joseph Smith was just another false prophet.

PPS: The Godfather of Soul can spell any damn way he wants....

Seth:

You are completely incorrct.

There were a number of substantial chalanges that you made no attempt to refute. Not merely the name calling and mockery that you accuse.

Frankly, you posts were pretty easy to pick apart. Perhaps deep down you realize that Smith was a really successful huckster with a penchant for young ladies, thus your defensiveness.

Joseph Smith said and wrote many, many....well curious things about life and religion. His work and life (like that of any other founder of a major religion) deserve to be examined and critically disected.

Sorry, Mormons usually seem pretty nice, but the basis for that religion is just too silly to be taken seriously.

Feel free to lead the "adult debate" at your leisure.

PS: Make it funky....

Seth: You Misrepresent

Both James Madison and myself gave you entirely substantive, non-name calling arguments against the Mormon version of Heaven, or any other.

you made NO RESPONSE to those substantive points.

Instead, you accuse Donna Summer of name-calling.

You have the choice to engage in substantive debate yourself. There are plenty of substantive questions on the table, which you have ignored.

just one, from Madison: why would God choose a man of questionable reputation like Smith when paragons like Emerson abounded, despite your contention that God had no better choice than smith.?

Well, once again, the secularists have proven themselves unable to address the actual ideas in a religion and have again contented themselves with a self-congratulatory little exercise in name-calling and mockery.

It's fairly obvious you guys are incapable of a real argument against religion. Instead you rely on ad hominem attacks that really have nothing to do with the value of the religious ideas in question. Either that, or you pull out the good old standby about the underwear, or Santa Claus - as if that had anything to do with anything.

When you're ready to actually debate like adults, maybe we'll have something to talk about. In the meantime, have fun with your little intellectual make-out session. Maybe BGONE and DONNA can get to third base or something.

Peace out.

Bound for Glory??? Maybe Not.

One could consider the title of Ms Flake's column as a deceptive, dishonest PR hype message.

What if you die and there is just darkness? Are you sure there won't be? What are you going to say to Ms Flake then, this woman who made you these Glorious Promises based on NO EvIDENCE at all.

What if I cam to you, a Cancer Sufferer, and said that if you bought into my religion and were baptized, and I laid my hands on you, your Cancer would be cured (isn't that what Oral Roberts did?).

I should be put in jail for fraud, if not hung by the fingernails for a month.

But Ms Flake can tell me that when I die I am Bound for Glory, and get away with it.

It is nice to know that the Apostle Paul was wrong when he wrote Romans chapter 1. However, I will choose to believe the Apostle Paul was correct rather than a Mormon. Additionally, I believe that the words of Jesus Christ in Mark chapter 6 are also valid.

Doctor Flake, are you wearing your special underwear today?

http://www.truthandgrace.com/mormonunderwear.htm

CONCLUSIONS SUMMARY,

Go to your "b." item and change it from 'religious groups' to 'political groups' and change 'adherents' to 'constitutents' and that statement will then be THE moral issue of the world to be dealth with.

BGONE,

The Devil is real and it really does prefer real money. Of course the Devil prefers other people's tax money rather than using its own.

Ever wonder what 'force' is protecting Cheney??

If Devil decides it screwed up it probably will help out. Whatever happens, if blame is to be assigned Devil won't take it!

Heaven is an Ancient Superstition
Heaven is Bad for Morality

without much serious contradiction, we all have established that
a. heaven is a myth that was spun at about about the time of the 7-day-creation story and the Serpant Who Talked. No serious grown-ups believe either story, and none should believe the Heaven superstition either. It is a Fairy Tale. Akin to the tooth fairy.

b. Heaven/Hell have been used by religious groups to control the behavior of their adherants.

The reward/punishment scheme is at the LOWEST level of moral reasoning, it promotes behavior based on extrinsic rewards and punishments rather than behavior based on truly moral intrinsic motivation.

Any dissent.

Or can we move on from this silly story and talk about serious moral issues in the world, like helping the poor, afflicting the powerful, and keeping wars to a minimum

STAN, good question. Where did JS get the money? You don't suppose Devil is real and really does have a huge bank account?

Try silent partners, shareholders, capitalism at it's finest. Hell is a gold mine operates successfully by millions for at least 5,000 years.

Speaking of W, did you notice Billy shove his plate under his nose? There's good, (could be bad) news. W just grinned and tried to ignore it. It was Chaney who coughed up the "payback" money.

The best news is that no one knows what anyone else actually believes. With that thought in mind we can hope W isn't as stupid as he says he is.

For better or for worser we only get one of them presidents at a time. W's the only one we got. Let us pray. Any supernatural beings out there listening? The situation is rapidly getting to where a little help from Devil could be welcomed.

It may take a 'village to raise a kid' but it takes an organization to develop and sustain a religious fraud, and for centuries. Anyone ever wonder where Joseph Smith got the money?? Time and time again when he needed it to start over? And Brigham Young?

And those that "believe" also apparently think they are intelligent, - whatever that means. And apparently some think that a person without the capacity to discern obvious fraud has gumption enough to sustain the United States of America as a government based on a Constitution!

What if the God of Creation and ITS Spirit is dissed by all the disrespect and proclaimations in Him/Her/Its Name with such a lack of 'common' sense.

SETH R, if CTCNL is spamed however will s/he be converted, made to see the light, saved, born again, baptized, caused to make a generous donation, or become a free missionary worker counting the money received by mail? You must present s/he with your undeniable logic, simply threaten s/he with the fires of hell. If that fails then burn s/he at the stake,, you can sell tickets to watch and make a fortune,, for God's treasury. That will insure your safe entry into the kingdom of God.

Warning! http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul The supernatural critter that lives in fire, the *God* that Moses made the deal with is most likely Devil. Proceed at your own risk,, of eternal damnation.

Someone really needs to put "Concerned The Christian Now Liberated" on the spam filter.

My Dear Seth,

Thank you for taking care of our country now that I am gone.

I notice that you wrote: "If God was hoping to find someone who would match up to your standards of rational behavior in the early 1800s, I think he would have been a long time looking."

Not to blow my own horn, or those of my fellow founding fathers, but there were quite a few of us around between 1776 and 1820, when Joseph Smith claimed to have his first vision. If the Almighty had deigned to call on me, a reputedly good and rational man who was never accused of fraud or treasure hunting, I would have been pleased to receive Him.

A bit later, a fine fellow of impeccable reputation named Ralph Waldo Emerson would have made a fine candidate. Brilliant, moral, compassionate, an ordained preacher.

Inalienably,
James Madison

Seth
One more point. you wrote:
"Your analogy would work if it was possible to reduce the entirety of Mormon thought and theology down to Joseph Smith's supernatural claims."

This implies that

IF: Mormon Thought and Theology are true/verifiable
THEN: the Mormon version of Heaven is verifiable.

First: Mormon theology (or ANY theology) may be true but there is NO way men can ever know whether it is or not. So a theological belief can not establish any proposition as its consequent.

Second: even if Mormon Practices (eg the Word of Wisdom) were shown to be good practices,

That would not prove that the Unverifiable version of Heaven Mormons believe in is True, actually exists.

It is an extraordinary claim to say that a particular complicated Heaven scheme such as the Mormon one is "true."
Extraordinary claims require evidence the same as Ordinary Claims do. more so, if anything.

There is NO evidence for the Mormon claims about heaven, and there could not be.

They are Non falsifiable

Seth
Columbus is a great comparison.

He made a claim. He tested it. He brought back evidence, and millions of people verified his evidence and his conclusion.

Smith made a claim About Heaven (for now i am limiting it to heaven cuz that's the topic))
He had NO evidence that his heaven actually exists. No one has tested it, and it Can NOT be tested.

I believe Columbus therefore, and I don't believe Smith. When you bring me Columbus-like evidence on Smith's heaven, I will believe it.

I describe Smith as a treasure hunter and occultist not to ridicule him, but because the evidence shows that that is what he was.

I am a fifth generation Mormon. I know every facet of the doctrine and history.

Mormons follow pretty derivative Christian practices and add the overlay of Smith's writings for doctrine. Easy to explain how Smith could found a church without having had divine guidance. There are lots of successful churches, and Mormons claim that they are the oNLY divinely guided one, but there is no proof of that, and no reason to believe Mormons are any more divinely guided than Muslims are.

Remember, Mormons are asking us to believe a fantastic and unverifiable story about Heaven because a man who had a reputation as a fraud and a treasure hunter wrote it.

Dr. Flake and Mr. Wilson,

The "angel" i.e. the major hallucination factor:

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinker bell" got around).

Jesus and his extended family/scribes had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie talking thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Some added references to "tinker bells".

"Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

Apparently hallucinations did not stop with Joe Smith.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07049c.htm

"This belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an Assyrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."

Catholic monks and Dark Age theologians also did their share of hallucinating:

"TUBUAS-A member of the group of angels who were removed from the ranks of officially recognized celestial hierarchy in 745 by a council in Rome under Pope Zachary. He was joined by Uriel, Adimus, Sabaoth, Simiel, and Raguel."

And "tinker bells" go way, way back:

"In Zoroastrianism there are different angel like creatures. For example each person has a guardian angel caled Fravashi. They patronize human being and other creatures and also manifest god’s energy. Also, the Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, but they don't convey messages, but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord", God); they appear in an abstract fashion in the religious thought of Zarathustra and then later (during the Achaemenid period of Zoroastrianism) became personalized, associated with an aspect of the divine creation (fire, plants, water...)."

"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "

For added information see the review at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel

Dr. Flake and Mr. Wilson,

As noted many times previously but without rebuttal so far: (this is your chance)

A synopsis of the foundations of the major contemporary religions:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and
their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian sects.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"
The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an analysis of Jesus' life to include his illiteracy.

Your analogy would work if it was possible to reduce the entirety of Mormon thought and theology down to Joseph Smith's supernatural claims.

But to do so is highly reductionist.

The alien abduction guy isn't also writing a profound and highly complex book of religious thought, creating a new religion, and writing rather profound pieces of political, social, philosophical and religious thought.

If you want to say "I'm not really interested in looking into Mormon thought because I have no compelling proof or reason to do so" that's fine by me. I have no compelling need to read Middlemarch right now either. Your time is your own to spend as you wish.

But you have not been satisfied with being merely agnostic and indifferent about Mormonism (which I could respect). You have sought to discredit it.

And you're going to have to do better than repetitively exclaiming "that sounds crazy!"

People said the same thing to Columbus. His round earth claim seemed ludicrous in light of the evidence they had. But that didn't make him right.

Maybe Joseph Smith ain't no Columbus. But maybe he is. Shouting "crazy" certainly isn't going to prove it, one way or the other.

Ridicule is not an argument anyone need respect. It's simply the refuge of someone who is too intellectually lazy to make a real argument.

Seth
follow me through this process:

I make a fantastical claim that something happened to me that no one I know has had happen to them.

Like: Aliens came and abducted me and bought me ice cream.

Is your first impulse:

Oh, he must be telling the truth.

or

Prove it. That sounds incredible.

If I were George Washington, who never told a lie, you might be more interested. Or say Ralph Waldo Emerson, who was available to God at the time he chose Smith instead.

If i were known as an inveterate liar and cheater and swindler,

my crazy fantastical story would be EVEN more unbelievable.

Only a crazy person doesn't take into account the credibiility of a witness in evaluating his testimony.

Ad hominem attack to say that Smith was a notoriously unreliable witness?

or common sense.?

The point is Henry, that assuming God wanted to speak to the world in the 1800s (and why shouldn't he?), God would have to work with the human material that was available at the time. In the 1800s, that meant accepting a few things that seem quirky today.

The broad span of the holy writ has always been the story of deeply flawed men seeking for the divine. The fact that Joseph Smith himself was deeply flawed proves nothing about his message.

Just about every great mind human history has produced was attached to a deeply flawed individual. Heck, half of humanity's most compelling artists were well-nigh suicidal. Our best scientists, our best thinkers, our deepest authors, greatest leaders... in short the best and brightest of history.

All of them, every last one of them, were deeply flawed people.

So I ask again - why is a spotless personal record your touchstone for credibility?

Ideas must always stand on their own merit. Ad hominem attacks are nothing more than an immature approach both to theological argument, and to historical inquiry.

Aside from ad hominem attacks, all you've been able to offer so far is a contemptuous tone. Others have seen fit to add childish ridicule to it.

If you don't have a good argument against the ideas themselves, just say so.

Devil is a busy fellow.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul Moses spoke to a ball of fire. Devil lives in fire. Moses made a deal with Devil.

The big money goes to those who lead the multitudes to hell. How many now follow Joseph Smith? How did Old Joe make out,, after he had a divine revelation,, compared to how things were going for him before he spoke to God? Moses was a criminal on the run from the law and became the leader of the "Chosen People of God" arguably the most important position, much higher than president of the US, there is.

Calling Devil God does not make Devil God but does make Devil happy. We wouldn't want to disappoint the Devil would we? So, "go to your churches, temples, synagogues and mosques and pray" where you are the prey of Devil,, according to the Bible. Lucky for you the Bible is a proved hoax.

Seth

The question at hand is: do you believe in Heaven, specifically the Mormon version as “revealed” to Joseph Smith.

Of Smith’s established reputation as an Occultist, practicer of magick and witchcraft, and treasure hunter, you say

“. I've just about heard it all, and yet I still find Mormon theology and thought compelling.”

In other words, you take the “testimony” of such a man as PROOF that there is an amazingly complicated heaven (which is also remarkably similar to Swedenborg’s heaven of 70 years earlier).

Would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge?

By 19th century standards, lots of people were making up crazy magical stories, so we shouldn’t condemn Smith for making up a crazy magical story.

Is that what you’re telling me?

Though it seems crazy to us in 21st century terms to believe that Treasure Hunters could find treasure with Peep Stones, if we look at it in the context of 19th century values,

We will Believe It is True?????

Do you???????

I must truly and kindly say, Seth, that your “defense” of Smith is the most incredible of many incredibly defenses I have heard.

By the way, I lived in the 19th Century, so I have first hand knowledge of the context.

Love
henry

"Just about every gentleman alive in antebellum America had views and practices that would be considered, by 21st century standards, eccentric, if not downright crazy."

You've elucidated the point nicely. Why don't we leave the myths and superstitions in the past and focus on what we know now about how the world works and our modern ways of figuring it out?

I supposed you think I'm supposed to be surprised by these "shocking revelations" about Joseph Smith?

Not really. But thanks for playing.

I'm already aware about Joseph Smith's local reputation as a gold digger, the similarity of certain religious rites in Mormonism to Masonic ritual, his multiple wives, and a host of other "skeletons in the Mormon closet."

There's really very little you can tell me about Mormon history that will come as any sort of a news flash. I've just about heard it all, and yet I still find Mormon theology and thought compelling.

But the fact is - just in case you missed it - Joseph Smith didn't live in the 21st century. He lived in the 19th century. And judging him by 21st century norms is rather silly.

Put him in the proper historical context of his time. Just about every gentleman alive in antebellum America had views and practices that would be considered, by 21st century standards, eccentric, if not downright crazy. Almost the entire American population.

If God was hoping to find someone who would match up to your standards of rational behavior in the early 1800s, I think he would have been a long time looking.

I suppose you'll be arguing next that Joseph Smith did not practice appropriate dental hygiene, and therefore, cannot be a valid prophet.

Pray tell, what has infallibility EVER had to do with being divinely called of God.

Another conclusion about Smith's record as an Occultist

(check out the evidence for yourself: objective evidence you find on your own - not pro or anti mormon)

(but, there are hundreds of these kinds of charges against Smith, and NO similar charges against Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Now that the authenticity of the Neely record has been established beyond all doubt, Mormon Church leaders are faced with a serious dilemma. Most people would allow Joseph Smith the right to make a few youthful mistakes without maintaining that it would seriously affect his later role as a prophet. The issue, however, is much more serious than just the transgression of an early New York law. What is involved here is the question of whether Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God or merely a man entangled in occultic practices. The implications of this matter are very serious indeed.

Once we accept the validity of the documents concerning Joseph Smith’s trouble with the law, we are forced to admit that he was engaging in witchcraft and magical practices at the very time he claimed he was being tutored by the deceased Moroni, now an angel, to receive the sacred records. These facts undermine the whole story of the divine origin of the Book of Mormon.

Gee Whiz, Mr James

I don't know what to THINK about this item i found about joseph smith, among 1,500,000 other entries i good when i googled "joseph smith fraud".

here is the story: could this be true?

"In late 1825 a wealthy Pennsylvania farmer named Josiah Stowell (sometimes spelled Stoal) came 150 miles to hire Smith because of Smith's reputation. Smith was hired to help Stowell locate a supposed old Spanish silver mine on Stowell's farm. During this time two significant things happened. First, Smith met his future wife, Emma Hale, and in later interviews her father explained how he didn't like Joseph Smith when he first met him because Smith was a money-digger, and Mr. Hale didn't want any criminals marrying his daughter! Perhaps even more damaging, however, was the fact that Smith was tried and convicted in court in March 1826 for "glass-looking". The charge had been brought up by Stowell's nephew, who saw through the con that his uncle didn't. Mormon historians now acknowledge that this trial happened and that Smith was convicted on this charge.

All of this means that during the very years Smith was supposedly being readied by God to restore true Christianity, he was working as a con man, and that the very mechanism by which he worked his con is the way that he "translated" the Book of Mormon into English! Now I now that everyone has faults, no one is perfect, etc. But let's ask the question: would God work in this way?"

Thinker again: could this have really happened? Do we have more evidence for this, or for Smith's version of Heaven. (don't want to derail us from our main topic).

What do YOU think?
Do YOU think?

Joseph Smith a Fraud?

I don't see how anyone can possibly think that, looking at the historical evidence.

Hardly anyone thinks he was a fraud.

Mormons surely know that he wasn't

Oh, I see Ms Flake posted her thoughts here in addition to Mr Otterson.

Ditto my above post. I thought twice.

Q Do you believe in heaven or hell?

A. Do you mean, what do I think of Mr Otterson's answer to this question, as PR man of the LDS church?

Oh, that is what you mean? You mean that is why Mr Otterson posted an answer, to allow people to comment on it.? O00000HHHHH..... now i get it.

Well, the Mormon belief in Heaven came from joseph Smith.

Joseph Smith claimed he received this information from God.

So, you either believe Smith Got it from God
or you believe
that Smith is a fraud.

Is it a derailment of the question to make that choice as clear as possible? Only if one doesn't want to confront the choice, methinks.

Q: Do you believe in heaven or hell?

A: Joseph Smith was a fraud, Mormons are deluded.

Your tireless derailment of discussing the question at hand grows very, very tiresome.

Max
You are right: If I thought I saw God last night, I would check into a hospital immediately.

I know enough about human history, philosophy, psychiatry, religious delusions, legal testimony that has been erroneous (eyewitness identifications that have been innaccurate)

to NOT trust one person's testimony on ANYTHING, even (especially?) my own.

Is this a radical position?

In any case, I would not trust my own perception if I thought I had seen God. Perhaps I would be eventually convinced.

BUT (big But) I have NOT had that experience, and I have seen no convincing account of anyone who has.

My view of Loving Kindness includes Not Condescending to my conversation mates by shading my opinions to be polite rather than truthful.

I think being truthful is kinder, and more loving, in most cases.

I love you. I think some of your opinions are questionable. You think the same of me. Good. I know you are a good person who does good things in the world. Here we are talking about the validity of certain positions.

Henry

Max
OF COURSE I have a high opinion of myself. I am an expert on metaphysico-theologico-cosmolonigology".

Smith was a charismatic genius, but he was a middling literary stylist. The BoM would never come close to winning the National Book Award.

Other Science Fiction writers have written fantasies much more intricate and brilliant than Smith's, so it HAS been demonstrated to be possible. And Henry does believe that.

Billions have prayed about the Quran and had its truthfulness confirmed by God. Do you believe them. If you do, you must DISbelieve Smith.

If you are convinced of the Book of Mormon's truth because it has been written, fine. Very few rational human beings would be.

Cheap trick: here's another one: millions of people have written imaginative fantasies. henry james wrote 12 novels that are billions of times more imaginative than Smith's.

And NO rational person accepts those fictions as true. Same truth procedure should apply to Smith's work of fiction.

Henry James sais: "If someone says to me 'believe this because I have faith that it is true,' no matter what THIS is, I say, I’m from Missouri. If you came to me and said you saw God last night, I would say, 'how nice for you.'"

And if someone did show you? If you actually witnessed something supernatural?

I don't think that even then you would believe. You would attribute it to some trick, search for some alternative materialist explanation, doubt your own eyes, or even consider yourself mad or hallucinating. Your conclusion would flow a priori from your disbelief in the supernatural.

In any case, I can agree with you that "the first duty of a human being is loving kindness and compassion towards his fellows" though I wish I felt more loving kindness in your comments here. The same might be said of mine. Perhaps we should be kinder to each other, and less derisive.

Cheers brother James, I have no doubt that God will bless you and reward you for your loving kindness toward your fellow beings.

Pangloss said "I could write a 600 page book that looked a lot like a scripture and was logically as coherent as Smiths."

Considering that you describe Joseph Smith as a genius and charismatic, you must have quite a high opinion of yourself.

I think you would find it much, much harder than you assert, but it would be interesting to see you try. Knock yourself out. But remember that until you actually produce such a volume, Henry James won't believe that you can do so because he doesn't believe anything until it is demonstrated :p

Even if you managed to do it, and I have seen nothing in your writing here in the comments that would indicate you so capable, would I be able to pray and ask God to confirm the truthfulness of your book and get a personal answer that would convince me?

It is easy to dismiss the Book of Mormon by merely claiming that you could write its equal. It is another matter altogether to prove that you can. And you and I both know that you have no intention of attempting it, so your claims amount to nothing more than a cheap, but often effective rhetorical trick-- an easy way to deride without having to prove your point. When you abandon such cheap-shots for a honest consideration of the impressive accomplishment that the Book of Mormon is, let me know.

John D The First:

Are you telling me that IT in the ball of fire that Moses made the deal with is the same supernatural being Joe Smith got his instructions from? Don't tell me. I'll figure it out. The "Promised Land" IT gave the Mormons is actually Ohio and not Utah. One of these days IT's going to learn how to read a map. Just kidding of course.

Glad to see that it was really God in Rev Smith's case. Making deals with the Devil can lead to great wealth, big powerful organizations, even the presidency -- of your own corporation, sky's the limit on what Devil can deliver not to mention hell. If we could just leave the hell part out.

Good luck.

Max Wilson

I was just having a beer with Pangloss and he showed me your note.

I was quite careful NOT to say that Smith was psychotic, but that his behavior was largely indistinguishable from that of psychotics.

As far as supernatural experiences, until it is demonstrated that they have occurred, I will not believe that they have occurred. I don’t believe ANYTHING is true until it is demonstrated with evidence.

If someone says to me “believe this because I have faith that it is true,” no matter what THIS is, I say, I’m from Missouri. If you came to me and said you saw God last night, I would say, “how nice for you.”

You ask “how do I prove the non-existence of the supernatural?” An idiotic question.

How do you prove that Pegasus does not exist? Or the tooth fairy? Or Santa Claus?

Intelligence demands that existence needs to be demonstrated, not that non-existence needs to be demonstrated.

Your Chesterton quote demonstrates nothing other than that Chesterton said it.

I don’t know what was going on in Smith’s head. I know that there is no evidence for or against his version of Heaven, and there is never likely to be.

Sidney Rigdon’s complicity in the story is, I regret to say, not dispositive as far as I am concerned. Nor would it be for 98% of the world’s population.

I believe you BELIEVE the church is true. That does not “make it true.” I am glad the church has brought you joy.

What IF Smith’s version of Heaven is true? Then my confirmed belief that the first duty of a human being is loving kindness and compassion towards his fellows would remain exactly the same. Neither you nor I will “know” for sure until we die. I think acting well towards one’s fellows because one expects a reward in heaven is a childish and retrogressive moral practice.

Love and Peace
Henry

J Max

You are describing Mohammed, right?

We all admit Smith was a genius, a charismatic, a Ron Hubbard type only more so.

Look how many people Mao got to follow him.

The point is that Smith's claims about heaven are no more verifiable than Mohammed's or Moses's. Or the Bible's, which differ significantly from Smith's.

I could write a 600 page book that looked a lot like a scripture and was logically as coherent as Smiths.

Would that make it true?

There IS reason to believe that following the earthly practices of Mormonism leads to a successful religion. Same could be said for Islam. Shall we then accept Islam's contradictory fantasy of heaven instead of Smith's fantasy of heaven.?

Hale-Bopp,

You've taken my response to Pangloss much too seriously. I think it is clear that Pangloss was using a facetious, semi-offensive parody of Joseph Smith as a rhetorical device to communicate his derision, an approach that I have encountered all too often, and I was responding in the best way I know how for that particular method of attacking Mormonism.

I was not trying to establish some kind of absolute theoretical measure of the truth of the doctrines of any group.

However, I do think that the virtues promoted and cultivated in communities of adherents to a certain religious group (excluding individual outliers) in the doctrine they believe can contribute or detract from credibility of that religion. And if one group can engender those virtues in a larger number than another, it ought to be more considered.

Any honest comparison between the LDS movement and Jonestown, or Heaven's Gate, or any of the "Visionaries" contemporary with Joseph Smith, will admit that the similarities are only superficial, not to mention uncharitable.

If you really want to defend the credibility of Panglossism in particular, then feel free. :)

This is from another posting but it is applicable here, also maybe we should all stop trying to get the best seat or mansion so to speak and hope beyond what we might think is possible. God loves all of us, we are all His children, please read on. First off yes God has chosen me for something specific. My real name is Thomas Paul Moses Baum, Thomas Paul Baum is my baptismal name and Moses is my confirmation name, sometimes a sacrament might take a few decades to kick in so to speak. I have been called Moses since before I can remember and I chose that name for my confirmation name over some objection but not a lot. I had no idea that I was the New Testament Moses, as a matter of fact I didn't even know there was suppose to be one. The Old Testament Moses said someone like me will come along, some theologians have said that Jesus was who Moses was talking about, something that I would like to point out is that OT Moses was chosen by God whereas Jesus was not chosen by God but was God who chose to become Jesus. I have met God the Trinity, God the Father came into my heart, God the Holy Spirit came into my body and spoke thru me to me and He also revealed to me that Jesus is present in the catholic Eucharist not by sight or anything. I have also met satan who is not nice at all but can try to come across as mister nice guy. I have also had 2 dreams that I know are from God and in one of those dreams I was told that only I could say it, well I had no idea what it was that only I could say so I dove into bible studies, these bible studies were of any denomination or non-denominational and I even found some Jewish bible studies, but actually I should say that God found these for me, I just made myself available. I am catholic and I cherish my catholic faith and sometimes I am amazed that the catholic faith has survived within the catholic religion. I think of myself as a roaming catholic trying to do what God has chosen me to do. I have also experienced hell, the hell that the bible speaks of and spiritual death and I tell you and the whole world I definitely was not thanking God for that when it was happening but now I do, I guess I had to know that they were both real and much worse than anyone could imagine. Some people seem to think that hell is some kind of monolithic place that God sends people to well that is not true at all, God sends no one to hell, you send yourself and you actually build it yourself. By the was, hell is not seperation from God that is spiritual death, hell is going to God and experiencing the wrongdoing, the unforgiveness and the judgmentalism of your life in the Light of Pure Love and I would recommend to people especially people that call themselves christians to take seriously what Jesus said. The bible speaks a lot about repenting and a lot of people do repent and don't even know they are doing it, it is being truly sorry for doing wrong and then again a lot of people are just trying to con God and all they are doing is conning themselves. Only God knows, I don't, God is a searcher of hearts and minds sometimes maybe we should let God be God, He is so much nicer than most people think He is and sometimes that seems even more so for the people that actually know His name. In case you didn't know it, satan knows the bible better than any human and satan is also very intelligent not only smarter than any person but probably smarter than the whole human race combined. Jesus told His apostles to go I think it was to the upper room and don't even attempt to do anything until the Holy Spirit comes upon you because He knew that they would be helpless until then. Jesus won the keys to hell and death, spiritual death, and He will use them in due time. Don't underestimate God's Mercy, Don't underestimate God's Forgiveness, Don't underestimate the Mysterious Plan of God. God said that He would send the simple to confound the wise, well Here I am. God also said My ways are not your ways, My thoughts are not your thoughts, God really is a God to give thanks for, He sure is not the hate-filled egomaniac that a lot of people that call themselves christians present Him to be. God is not a loser, a tie would be a loss as far as I am concerned. God wins Total Victory, Thank God. The captives shall be released, those in hell and the dead shall rise, those in spiritual death. We are in the book of revelation, I am the eater of the scroll, it wasn't a literal scroll by the way. Night is coming when no man can work, be ready, this will be the night of the sixth day but the dawning of the seventh day will get here too and with that the dawning of the Kingdom of God or the Kingdom of Love since God is Pure Love. Remember when the angels announced Jesus's birth they said two things, This is Good News for ALL People and peace to whom God's favor rests, these are two distinct greetings and both true. The word Gospel means Good News and that Good News is for all people whether you like it or not. The seven days of creation in the bible are quite literal but they are God days and how long each one lasted I don't know and how long the night of the sixth day lasts I don't know either but the seventh day will get here in due time. The only true religion is taking care of widows and orphans which basicallly means everyone. I repeat once again, God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof. I had no idea that I was a messenger of God but when I found out I said yes, God chooses who He chooses, if you have any questions about His choice, ask Him not me. Take Care, Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hale-Bopp,

You've taken my response to Pangloss much too seriously. I think it is clear that Pangloss was using a facetious, semi-offensive parody of Joseph Smith as a rhetorical device to communicate his derision, an approach that I have encountered all too often, and I was responding in the best way I know how for that particular method of attacking Mormonism.

I was not trying to establish some kind of absolute theoretical measure of the truth of the doctrines of any group.

However, I do think that the virtues promoted and cultivated in communities of adherents to a certain religious group (excluding individual outliers) in the doctrine they believe can contribute or detract from credibility of that religion. And if one group can engender those virtues in a larger number than another, it ought to be more considered.

Any honest comparison between the LDS movement and Jonestown, or Heaven's Gate, or any of the "Visionaries" contemporary with Joseph Smith, will admit that the similarities are only superficial, not to mention uncharitable.

If you really want to defend the credibility of Panglossism in particular, then feel free. :)

Thanks for the post. I really like how you explained how our choices effect our final outcome.

The faith vs. works (or really grace vs. works) subject comes up a lot when discussing LDS beliefs. In Richard Bushman's biography of Joseph Smith I really liked how he explained the LDS afterlife theology. I hope I don't butcher his comments too much. :)

When trying to understand the LDS beliefs on the afterlife from the outside, you can't think of it as the heaven vs. hell theology accepted by many in Christianity. Bushman said something to the effect that Mormonism isn't just about avoiding hell; rather, it's about trying to get as close to God as possible. In many ways, this is done through obedience to his commandments (a.k.a. works). So, while it is only through the grace of Jesus Christ we are able to avoid eternal hell, it is through our works that we draw ourselves closer to God. The two work together and never alone.

I think that many would be surprised, but the discussions that Mormons have on grace would be entirely acceptable in any mainstream Christian church.

Bgone,

Your revelation on Egyptian religion doesn't really pose a problem for Latter Day Saints, because they believe that the Egyptians learned and adopted aspects of the Christian Gospel from Abraham and perhaps others.

Best,

Jd1

J. Max Wilson.

Am I to infer in your rebuke, that your faith has more credibility than that presented by pangloss because tens, hundreds; believed, gave away all their property, gave up their families, and traveled to far and unknown lands after being persecuted by non-believers?
Mr. Wilson, that actually proves or legitimizes nothing. This sort of thing peppers the history of the planet. From ancient times through modern. James Jones’ People’s Temple, for example and the Heaven’s Gate crowd, all gave up their homes, families, possessions, changed diet, followed the preaching’s of a central prophet, and are dismissed as mere religious aberrations, cults.
I do not mean to associate, or compare LDS with cults, per se, only your apparent claim that LDS may be more credible than ‘panglossism’ because of the trials and sacrifice you mention. If in fact devotion by followers, sacrifice, loss, persistence, and survival amidst persecution is the litmus test of a legitimate religion, I’m afraid LDS does not really stand out any more than those cults, Judaism, Catholicism, or Wicca.

I got to ask this question of the religious history professor. Do you include the ancient Egyptians in the set of Christian religions? If not why not? The ancient Egyptians are the very first Christians believing that a man-God, Pharaoh held the keys to heaven, was Christ required to get them past the demon on the nebol bridge.

Read all about it at http://www.hoax-buster.org Please confine your findings to the content and not the literary excellence of the author.

He says that the concept of hell originated in ancient Egypt. No hell means no Christ required to "save" sinners, those who broke Pharaoh's rules. He goes on to say that the hero of the Gospels, Jesus Christ today's dead Christ was actually a would be Pharaoh, one of the many Egyptian living Christs, Amenophis IV. Somebody has the story screwed, don't you think? Hell does go back a little further than Dante?

Have those ancient documents been misread on purpose to maintain the high status of modern religions or is it just another case of abject ignorance?

I'm sure you want to teach the truth. The truth has a way of getting out no matter how hard we try to deny it.

If I lead a good, moral and generous life. Loving and caring of my family, have an active concern for others but feel that God is only what is good and noble in humans and there is no supreme being beyond our humanity will I not have glory? I don't think so and further more could not care less.

Pangloss,

Why don't you publish your 600 page revelation, give it to a few friends and ask them to take it to England, or somewhere far from where you live, and let's see how many people will believe that you are a prophet after reading it, without ever having met you, then sell or abandon their homes, travel to the edge of civilization to create their own city with you, while all the while enduring severe persecution from all around them, abstaining from adultery, alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea, and then eventually having to carry their own belongings by foot over thousands of miles to establish their own paradise in the middle of a barely habitable desert.

Good luck. Let me know how it goes.

Henry James,

Of course your contention that Joseph Smith was suffering from a psychosis that was the root cause of his "Spiritual" experiences could be applied to all supernatural experiences by either the founders or the practitioners of any religion. Why pick specifically on Joseph Smith and Latter-day Saints?

You comment makes you out to be a disciple of Materialism. Do you allow for the possibility of any supernatural event? How do you prove the non-existence of the supernatural?

As I see it, it takes as much faith in its unprovable axioms to believe in Materialism as it does to believe in religion. If Joseph Smith in reality did receive legitimate communications from the Creator, would the preceptive filter created by faith in Materialism cause you to reject that reality, despite it being true? To reject reality based on faith in Materialism is as much folly as rejecting reality because of faith in false religion. As G.K. Chesterson said, "The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason."

Additionally, your conclusion that Joseph Smith was merely insane seems overly simplistic and reductionist. It is too easy to dismiss him as a madman without acknowledging the complexities of not only his life, but the fascinating and complex organization of the church, and the written revelations he received.

Some of Joseph Smith's visions were simultaneously experienced by one or more others. In particular, the vision in which the afterlife doctrine discussed here by Sister Flake, that of Multiple Kingdoms of Glory, was received simultaneously by Joseph Smith AND Sidney Rigdon, in the presence of multiple others who did not see the vision themselves, but could see the physical effect it had on brother Rigdon. (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/76)

My own spiritual experiences confirm Joseph Smith as a prophet and the Book of Mormon as true. Following the teachings of Joseph Smith and the church has brought me immeasurable joy.

Perhaps we are all mad as you claim, but shouldn't you give pause and allow yourself to ask "What if...it is real?" "Could it be...true?" "Could my faith in Materialsim by keeping me from the truth?"

As Robert Zimmerman wrote:

Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God says, "Out on Highway 61."

I Have Seen God: Join My Religion and Come to Heaven

God the mother appeared to me yesterday when I was hiking on the Appalachian Trail. I know it was Her.

She said if I would follow her and found a new religion according to Her precepts I would go to Heaven.

She then described Heaven to me.
It looks a lot like one of Donald Trump's luxury hotels by the beach.
There are six levels of accommodations.
If you follow all of Her commandments, you get an Executive/Presidential Suite like Britney Spears had in Las Vegas on her honeymoom with Kevin.
If you led a life full of wine, women, and loud happy song, you have to live in the cleaning closet.
She then proceeded to hand me a 600 page document detailing the features and procedures and Heaven down to the smallest detail.

I swear on the Bible that this really happened. It is true. I know it is true with all my heart. Please join me in this quest for Heaven.

Heaven and Hallucinations

Mormons believe in a Heaven described by Joseph Smith.

Smith claimed that he had visions/hallucinations and heard voices that described in great detail the afterlife and its structure, location, and procedures.

No human being has ever actually witnessed this Heaven. There is no evidence whatsoever for it's reality/truth.

The BBC guide to Mental Health says
"Hallucinations are a common psychotic symptom, and this includes hearing voices. For sufferers, the voices are so real that they come up with varying explanations, including the CIA has planted a microphone in their ears, or the spirits are talking to them.

Strange visual experiences, although less common than auditory symptoms, are also part of the diagnosis for psychosis. A patient might see a 'vision'..."

Smith's claims are indistinguishable from those made by millions of psychotics, including our Deus ex Machina Pangloss above.

It may be comforting to believe in Heaven, Mormon or otherwise. As the following quote shows, it has many similarities to what is commonly known as madness

Although non-specific concepts of madness have been around for several thousand years, the psychiatrist and philosopher Karl Jaspers was the first to define the three main criteria for a belief to be considered delusional in his book General Psychopathology. These criteria are:

* certainty (held with absolute conviction)
* incorrigibility (not changeable by compelling counterargument or proof to the contrary)
* impossibility or falsity of content (implausible, bizarre or patently untrue)

I like these verses from the Book of Mormon that speak of grace:

Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.
And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.
(http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/10/32-33#32)

CPW

Just wanted to say I appreciate the tone with which you've approached inter-faith dialogue here. I think you've been respectful towards LDS beliefs while maintaining honesty about what you find problematic. To me that seems to be the perfect formula to stimulate a real discussion and I'm glad you're here.

As to the baptisms for the dead -- Growing up in the LDS church, I always thought that sounded strange too -- didn't much want to tell my highschool friends I was going to do baptisms for the dead over the weekend. I knew it sounded strange.

Though I understand it now as being an integral way to enable the progression of those who've passed on not having had the oppurtunity in life to hear and accept the gospel, I can still see why others might object to it from other perspectives. But I guess as a LDS, the general question back to other Christians is always if not baptisms for the dead, then what? -- how are those who've died without ever having heard the gospel of Jesus Christ to be given an oppurtunity?

I don't think I've ever heard a response that has been satisfactory to me but would be curious as to what other Christians might offer .

FWIW, I think the main misunderstanding by my fellow Mormons when we discuss faith, works and grace with those outside our religion centers on the concept of grace - not faith and works. Really, when it boils right down to the core principle, we agree with each other almost completely, if not completely.

We believe that it is by the grace of the Atonement of Jesus, the Christ, that we are allowed to exercise our faith in His promises and hope that our obedience to His expressed will (the commands and admonitions we receive from Him) will produce the type of works that He has asked us to do. IOW, we believe that as we become more like Him by living as He lived (to the best of our mortal and imperfect ability) through the exercise of our faith, His grace covers our failure to do so perfectly and allows us entrance into His presence.

That is wholly consistent with what I was taught as a fundamental of Christian theology by a Roman Catholic priest and a Protestant theologian at a liberal Divinity School. On this issue, I believe that we believe the same thing as most Protestants - we just tend to say it differently, and semantics gets in the way or understanding.

Welcome Dr. Flake. It's good to see another Mormon on the panel.

CPW

You've put your finger on one of the major gripes that traditional Christianity has with Mormonism - Grace vs. Works. It's a tough theological subject and I'm not sure that even Mormons are fully aware of the extent of their own existing grace theology.

I'd simply refer you to James 2:17-26. Just an excerpt:

"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works."

I really appreciate the attempt to explain their faith by both LDS members here. Admittedly, some of it sounds rather strange to a non-LDS, but that is of course subjective and relative. What I find more problematic are the consequences of these notions, such as baptizing the dead of other faiths, and having people of "lesser glory" before God. That seems to violate the core Christian principle of justification by grace alone through faith alone.

Dr. Flake,

It's great to have another Mormon participating as a panelist. I enjoyed your post and look forward to your continuing participation.

I really liked your final paragraph:

"As for the second question, I can answer with an unqualified “God only knows.” Final judgment is based on that which humans can never know: the truest desires of the heart as crafted by choice and circumstance, susceptible to healing after death, and always bound for glory."

You said that everyone is susceptible to healing after death. I would like to add to this and my wife's analogy posted above (Thankful), that “hell” in the Spirit World for any who has not repented of their sins is an integral part of that healing. Hell before the resurrection is to experience the natural consequences of our unrepented sins, which motivates one to forsake them and become more God-like through Christ. As a consequence of becoming more God-like one becomes more capable of happiness, love and peace. In the end ,“Hell” will enable all to leave their baggage behind before receiving a Kingdom of Glory at the resurrection.

Best,

Jd1

Q. What about the repeated references to hell in the HOly Bible and Book of Mormon?

As a LDS, I believe hell is more about being purged and purified of any unrepented of sins to enable one to attain a place in one of God’s kingdoms rather than an ongoing punishment and damnation that lasts forever and ever. In other words, some may go to hell but hell has an end and ultimately, a kingdom of glory may be received. I think the following can help illustrate these beliefs:

I’m a social worker and did a stint working with male domestic violence perpetrators some years ago. They had been court ordered to complete anger management classes and completion was the get out of jail card.

The ticket to begin the class was a copy given to myself of the arresting officer's report which detailed their crime including statements by the their victim as to what had happened. You can imagine how helpful this would be when they are spinning a much different story to obscure or minimize their behaviors backing one another up and blaming their victims.

As you might imagine, they were a lovely bunch especially at the beginning -- often pure narcissism at it’s finest. The most poignant day in that class was always when they were required to read aloud an assignment that they had been given to complete the week prior entitled “Victim Empathy.”

This assignment gave them detailed instructions to imagine and then write about the incident of their abuse as if they were in fact their victim -- her thoughts, her feelings, her screaming and trying to get away, her aftermath in trying to put her life back together, the affect on children and extended family, and on and on. -- everything from her perspective from beginning to “end” written in the first person.

There were some who avoided coming to this day of the course and had to wait until we did it again to complete it. It was hard to get a volunteer to start. As they read these assignments out loud, sadly some still remained sterile, cold and unaffected but there were also others who were the opposite -- some became quite choked up, needed pauses to collect themselves and really struggled to get through it wiping away or pushing back tears.

The inhumanity of their behaviors seemed to stare them in the face and though it was obviously painful, for such I always thought this was one of the most therapeutic things we did. Such men often expressed gratitude for the course when it was over and felt that they had become better men with a greater understanding of their wrongs as well as new skills to more appropriately deal with conflict. There are some now that I would not mind having as my neighbors or even my friends.

But when the course was over, there were others -- those men that remained unaffected, cold and hostile or so smooth and slimy that I wished they would have to take the class again or actually go to jail until they had really come to grips with the inhumanity of their behavior. Not because I’m some sort of sadist but because I think that they themselves would be much happier as well as their friends, families and wider community, if such individuals really made genuine personal change.
Although I know there’s no amount of jail time or anger management that can “make” them change, I sure wished their was for the sake of all.

I think this illustrates the LDS view of hell that occurs sometime before the resurrection among those who may die with unrepented of sins-- hell being something like a very long day in intensive Victim Empathy that lasts until the person truly makes sincere personal change. It can be seen as both painful and therapeutic with the goal that an individual can then inherit a degree of glory. Not the celestial or highest kingdom, but a kingdom of glory none the less.

Hope this helps. I’m sure others can help further expound.

JWS
They closed limbo, which was undeserved. Purgatory we make for ourselves.

I'm glad to see a fellow LDS woman now as a panalist here. Welcome to the forum "Sister" Flake. I appreciated your remarks.

As I read, I wondered how well those unfamiliar with LDS theology would grasp our beliefs that salvation is on a continuum as opposed to the heaven/hell dicotomy.

At times as I've shared this in the past, questions that seem to naturally arise are if everyone will be "saved" why then do LDS try to convert people to thier faith AND what about the repeated references to hell in the HOly Bible and Book of Mormon?

To answer the first question briefly (I imagine others will further expound) -- LDS beleive that it is only in the highest degree of glory (celestial kingdom) that one can be united / bound / sealed to one's spouse and together, to thier children for eternity. Most are probably familiar with the LDS concept of Eternal Families and that LDS beleive as family units in the celestial kingdom, such can continue on in a progression to become like our Heavenly Father. For LDS, these are considered the choicest blessings, hence it continues to be a huge part of our message which is essentially -- come unto Christ and bind and seal your family for eternity.

As to the question about hell, I'll post something I've shared earlier...

I thought that they closed purgatory...

Oh sorry, that was just for the Catholics.