It is currently Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:24 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 6:42 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:06 pm
Posts: 4284
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Don ~ Thanks for everything. I've always known you were a class act.

Droopy ~ Your questions:

Droopy wrote:
1.The First Vision.

It's possible that someone or something did appear to Joseph Smith in the grove. I don't believe it was God the Father & Jesus Christ telling Joseph Smith that all other Christian churches were wrong---I think that was added as Joseph Smith's theology and ecclesiology developed---but I'm not opposed to the idea that Joseph did really have some visionary experience there. The entirety of the 1832 account of the First Vision could have really happened and it would be completely consistent with my own theological worldview.

This doesn't have to do with the First Vision per se, but I've always liked what Paul Owen had to say about Joseph Smith:

Paul Owen wrote:
I do believe that Joseph can be viewed as a prophet of sorts (something along the lines of Balaam in Numbers 22-24), who experienced a taste of the charismata, and who may have been used to speak a true word of rebuke upon a wordly, divisive church which was gripped by the spirit of revivalism. God used Joseph to speak to the churches, and to expose their shallow versions of the Christian religion… When the Church does not bear witness to its Catholicity, when the Faith becomes more of a mechanism of producing converts than maintaining the unity and identity of the visible body, God raises up men and movements to rebuke the worldly church. The Rechabites (Jer. 35) and the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-37) provide us with comparable models in which to understand God’s purpose in raising up Joseph Smith and the Mormons.

Sadly, the Web page where he originally said this is now defunct; it's cited at my friend aquinas's blog here.

Droopy wrote:
2.The literal visit of Moroni to Joseph Smith and the physical reality of the gold plates.

I don't believe that it happened. I don't know whether Joseph Smith intentionally made it all up to deceive people, whether he made it all up because he honestly believed in the power of his message and the need to augment that message (i .e. "pious fraud), or had some kind of Beautiful Mind-style mental illness that made him think it was real. I'm pretty apathetic on the matter.

Droopy wrote:
3.The personal visitation to Joseph Smith and others of physical, resurrected beings, such as Moses, Abraham, Noah, Enoch, Peter, James, and John etc., to restore keys and ordinances.

I don't believe that it happened and I don't believe in "priesthood" in the sense that Mormons teach it. I think the accounts of his ordinations to priesthoods by resurrected beings were added years later to deal with challenges to his authority in the church. Even Richard Bushman has stated that "the late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication" (RSR 75). I imagine it's a pretty standard take on the matter among non-LDS historians.

Droopy wrote:
4.The doctrine of preexistence.

I don't believe that it happened, although I don't think there's anything in the Bible that contradicts it. Kevin Barney's response to Chapter 3 of James Patrick Holding's The Mormon Defenders contains some work on non-LDS Christians who have taught preexistence.

Droopy wrote:
The whole "misogyny" claim I consider to be nothing more than a libel, and a deeply tendentious, if not mendacious one at that.

Well, you're wrong on all counts. And the fact that I critiqued a single Latter-day Saint whose behavior I strenuously objected to (and believed to be very much out of harmony with the teachings of his church) does not make me an "anti-Mormon."

Droopy wrote:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13285&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=msjack

While I take Don's perspectives on MsJack in the spirit in which they are given, the above thread can be pursued for some context and background to my own views.

Pretty disingenuous of you to cite this thread without citing my thorough and in-depth response, Droopy.

I don't deny having feminist inclinations or critiquing the way the LDS church treats women, just as I critique the way many evangelical denominations treat women. I have a daughter who is a member of record with the church and attends the LDS church with her father at least twice a month. I think I would be an irresponsible parent if I didn't keep tabs on what others are teaching my daughter about her identity. None of that makes me "anti-Mormon" though, or else I would also be "anti-evangelical." What it makes me is "anti-patriarchy," or maybe "anti-male-privilege."

I have repeatedly clarified that a good number of feminists wouldn't think I am a feminist because I'm pro-life. I don't have a problem identifying as a feminist, but many of them would object.

Droopy wrote:
Yahoo bot implies a leaning toward "feminist theology." Yahoo bot again speaks of her "blogging amongst all your feminist ex-LDS apostates."

Yahoo Bot also agreed with me about William Schryver:

Yahoo Bot wrote:
I whole-heartedly endorse Ms. Jack's expose of Mr. Will Shyrver, and that fellow ought to have no place in decent Christian society. But that's just my opinion.

viewtopic.php?p=465377#p465377

I guess he's an anti-Mormon in your book, too?

Droopy wrote:
But Jack is not a feminist, not a leftist, and not anti-Mormon.

Yeah, that's right Droopy, I'm a "leftist." The kind of "leftist" who can count the number of Democrats that she's voted for on one hand.

_________________
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 7:31 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:06 pm
Posts: 4284
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Missed this post.

Droopy wrote:
Joseph Smith may have had sexual relations with some of his plural wives. That, after all, is one primary purpose of that institution. The utter lack of known descendants of any such relations militates against hasty inferences, however. But even if he did, these were, by definition, so long as lawfully performed under the mediation of the Melchizedek priesthood, non-adulterous by definition.

When someone does not personally believe in what Mormons call "the Melchizedek priesthood," where does that leave Joseph Smith's "marriages," Droopy? What "law" were they performed by then?

Droopy wrote:
Legitimate plural marriage is biblical doctrine, and well attested in the OT.

I agree. So is slavery.

Droopy wrote:
To accuse Joseph of adultery requires both a deep misunderstanding of core LDS doctrine regarding the various facets of eternal marriage as well as what could only be understood as a fundamentally apostate or certainly apostate-like intellectual/psychological orientation that places one's own personal biases/prejudices and perspectives above revelation, both ancient and modern.

Seems to me it would merely require rejection of LDS principles. It has nothing to do with misunderstanding them.

Droopy wrote:
Joseph was no adulterer so long as he was called and ordained to the practice of plural marriage by legitimate priesthood authority.

A proposition that I and all other non-members reject. It really just sounds like you're saying that all people who don't believe in Mormonism and form non-faith-promoting opinions on its claims are anti-Mormons, Droopy.

Droopy wrote:
Getting rid of Joseph's ministerial legitimacy has always been, of course, pivotal to subverting the entire basis of the Church's claims to divine legitimacy as an institution.

I don't believe in the church's claims to "divine legitimacy as an institution." There's no need to subvert anything.

Droopy wrote:
I'd be pleased to hear your pro-Mormon perspectives of the Book of Abraham, Jack.

I don't have "pro-Mormon" perspectives on the Book of Abraham any more than I have "anti-Mormon" perspectives on the Book of Abraham. Its English text is a 19th century religious document created by the founder of Mormonism who believed he was literally translating 1st century BC Egyptian papyri. Later Egyptologists have determined this papyri to be ordinary Egyptian funerary documents having nothing to do with Abraham. How Mormons reconcile point A with point B is really none of my concern, but points A and B are generally acknowledged as facts, even by Mormon apologists.

_________________
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 8:59 am 
2nd Counselor
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:12 pm
Posts: 438
As foreseen:
Quote:
Instead of the desired objective of, once and for all, impugning me such that (in fulfillment of your fondest dreams) I would be permanently repudiated by powers you imagine sufficient to silence me, all you have done is permanently cover with disrepute your entire propagandistic enterprise.
Quote:
Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.


Just as Trevor’s “Silence Schryver” gambit ultimately failed in its objective and only served to dispel the mirage of his own false reputation, so now has MsJack chosen to break herself on the same stone. Of course, maybe it’s for the best. Now she can, deprived of any further pretensions to moral superiority, shamelessly join the rest of the GSTP women in the infamous “Goddess Suite” for a raucous session of suggestive excess.

Original post here.

The lines of demarcation have been waxing wider and wider in the past few years. I like to believe that I have played some small role in effecting an enhanced sense of “enemy recognition” among those whose faith remains firm even as ostensibly friendly forces seek to undermine it. The alluring intellectual sophistries of the so-called “progressive” faction of the LDS intelligentsia (with which MsJack and others like her are consciously confederate, by design) are increasing in popularity among those who imagine themselves the vanguard of 21st century Mormon thought, and its savior from apologetic ruin.

In the long run, they will fail in their enterprise, and be despised by those who now flatter them.

Quote:
When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not.

_________________
I thought myself the wiser to have viewed the evidence left of such a great demise. I followed every step. But the only thing I ever learned before the journey's end was there was nothing there to learn, only something to forget.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:03 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:33 pm
Posts: 12064
Location: Kli-flos-is-es
Will Schryver wrote:
The lines of demarcation have been waxing wider and wider in the past few years. I like to believe that I have played some small role in effecting an enhanced sense of “enemy recognition” among those whose faith remains firm even as ostensibly friendly forces seek to undermine it. The alluring intellectual sophistries of the so-called “progressive” faction of the LDS intelligentsia (with which MsJack and others like her are consciously confederate, by design) are increasing in popularity among those who imagine themselves the vanguard of 21st century Mormon thought, and its savior from apologetic ruin.

In the long run, they will fail in their enterprise, and be despised by those who now flatter them.


Image

_________________
Parley P. Pratt wrote:
We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:
There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:09 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:06 pm
Posts: 4284
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Will Schryver wrote:
Just as Trevor’s “Silence Schryver” gambit ultimately failed in its objective and only served to dispel the mirage of his own false reputation, so now has MsJack chosen to break herself on the same stone. Of course, maybe it’s for the best. Now she can, deprived of any further pretensions to moral superiority, shamelessly join the rest of the GSTP women in the infamous “Goddess Suite” for a raucous session of suggestive excess.

MsJack wrote:
[Belinda Schryver,] [t]hanks for dropping by. Oh, and by the way, please do me a favor and let your husband know that comments like this:

William Schryver wrote:
[S]o now has MsJack chosen to break herself on the same stone. Of course, maybe it’s for the best. Now she can, deprived of any further pretensions to moral superiority, shamelessly join the rest of the GSTP women in the infamous “Goddess Suite” for a raucous session of suggestive excess.

Wherein he speculates on what types of sex acts I might like to engage in are completely unwarranted, unwelcome, inappropriate, and out of line. I haven't brought it up with him directly because he's been proven to do a very poor job of listening when women tell him that his comments about them are unwanted and inappropriate, but perhaps you can help me out.

viewtopic.php?p=455495#p455495

Which part of "unwarranted," "unwelcome," "inappropriate," and "out of line" did you NOT understand?

This is exactly what I was talking about. You are a creepy, creepy person, William.

_________________
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 9:16 am 
tired, less active investigator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:07 am
Posts: 10159
Location: Hungary
MsJack wrote:
Droopy wrote:
3.The personal visitation to Joseph Smith and others of physical, resurrected beings, such as Moses, Abraham, Noah, Enoch, Peter, James, and John etc., to restore keys and ordinances.

I don't believe that it happened ...

Don't You believe it?
Moses, Abraham, Noah, Enoch, Peter, James, and John have the saving grace that they are real persons - according the Bible.

Then what about Elias AND Elijah? Two important person of the angelic throng.
One of them is simply a translation error of the KJV. We can pick which one.
Don't You believe?

Droopy himself may have some reservation with their appearance, so he has left them out from the list...

The detailed description is readable in D&C 110:12-16.

_________________
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco
- To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:03 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2007 6:45 am
Posts: 8381
Location: somewhere else
Droopy wrote:

Exactly and precisely what you initiated against me and the way you have treated me in every exchange we've ever had.


Believe me, I'll try to learn my lesson to never engage with you again. But I can't let this lie pass. You have a short memory.

_________________
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:24 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:06 pm
Posts: 4284
Location: Des Plaines, IL
ludwigm wrote:
Don't You believe it?
Moses, Abraham, Noah, Enoch, Peter, James, and John have the saving grace that they are real persons - according the Bible.

Then what about Elias AND Elijah? Two important person of the angelic throng.
One of them is simply a translation error of the KJV. We can pick which one.
Don't You believe?

Droopy himself may have some reservation with their appearance, so he has left them out from the list...

The detailed description is readable in D&C 110:12-16.

I believe Moses, Abraham, Noah, Enoch, Peter, James and John existed. I believe Elisha and Elijah existed. I understand why those who don't believe in the inspiration of the Bible would doubt the existence of most of those figures, but as a Christian, I do believe they lived.

I don't believe any of them appeared to Joseph Smith and ordained him to anything.

_________________
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 10:27 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:33 pm
Posts: 12064
Location: Kli-flos-is-es
MsJack wrote:
I believe Moses, Abraham, Noah, Enoch, Peter, James and John existed. I believe Elisha and Elijah existed. I understand why those who don't believe in the inspiration of the Bible would doubt the existence of most of those figures, but as a Christian, I do believe they lived.

I don't believe any of them appeared to Joseph Smith and ordained him to anything.


I think it's probable that some of them are fictional characters - particularly Noah and Moses. Probably Abraham too.

_________________
Parley P. Pratt wrote:
We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:
There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 11:04 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
Blixa wrote:
Droopy wrote:

Exactly and precisely what you initiated against me and the way you have treated me in every exchange we've ever had.


Believe me, I'll try to learn my lesson to never engage with you again. But I can't let this lie pass. You have a short memory.



I don't lie. I'll leave that to the amoeboid creatures that float about in the Cesspark seeking whom they can devour. I don't recall a single instance when you've ever engaged me here in which you were not in full vision-of-the-anointed mode.

Never engage me again? You won't get any argument from me there.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 11:16 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 13629
Location: On the imaginary axis
MsJack wrote:
I believe Moses, Abraham, Noah, Enoch, Peter, James and John existed. I believe Elisha and Elijah existed. I understand why those who don't believe in the inspiration of the Bible would doubt the existence of most of those figures, but as a Christian, I do believe they lived.

...


Would you be offended I suggested that you might modify the bolded bit to read 'being the particular type of Christian that I am'?

I have known many devout Christians who would have severe doubts about the historicity of Noah and Enoch, probably Abraham, and even Moses. That did not mean they thought the Bible did not embody the Word of God - just that it was not always a factual news report, and needed (in their view) God-given human wit to understand its purposes aright.

Do you have any problem in calling people like that 'Christians'? No skin off my (now atheist) nose either way - I am just curious.

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 11:29 am 
Valiant B

Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2011 4:54 pm
Posts: 189
I could see so greatest discussions going on about Kinderhook BOMB. It should be the themme of discussion going on also in other topic:
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... =1&t=20022
Conclusions about the CHARACTORS from the CARACTORS LIST:

about the TRANSLATION of CHARACTERS and small WORDS that are on the list named CARACTORS, made by Joseph Smith through making copy of characters copied from Gold Plates used to translate the Book of Mormon.

As far as I went on, with a general previous translation, and then with in depth translation (linking to the source of characters, as from several type of Old Italic alphabet, and from Standard Old Greek Language and even to Ancient Greek, Phoenician characters, etc.), it could be concluded that the LANGUAGE USED BY THE Nephite PEOPLE WAS:

1) - Basically, for general purposes, the NEPHITIC language and characters were very alike the OLD ITALIC characters LANGUAGES (as some blend of Ancient Latin, Etruscan, Adriatic/Picene, Oscan, Umbrian, Sabina,Sabina-Tiberina, Etrurian,Campania-Osca, Samnio, Campania, etc.). Several names could mean the same thing, as they came from several authors, several sources and regions/times, providing quite similar characters and language features.

2) - Quite like some "clusters" of people living in "cultural-religious" alike "ghettos" (resembling JEWISH ones, as living in towns of Poland, and not having great "mixing with neighbors", the Nephites were like a BIG FAMILY COMMUNITY, that also had their own "language, religion", that was not the "plain orthodox Judaism", but was not also Pagan religions surrounding them).
Thus they had "PRIESTS, not the same as in Judaism". They had such PRIESTS already in captivity in Lebanon (Phoenicia), Joel 3:6. They helped them survive as "hidden nation" through Phoenicia, Greece and Italy. Priests ordered Nephites to build, as in ITAliah the TOMBS (as discovered since 1830), that are like Indian MOUNDS, also mentioned in Bible... Jesus was "buried" in a TOMB.

Because of such PRIESTS, they had written and spoken/verbal/tradition "memory" of those days of slavery in Lebanon, in Greece and of going to be free and living in freedom in ITA-LIAh. Some their names and surnames, recorded in ITAliah (and in use up to todays), remained the same or almost identical to those recorded in Book of Mormon. As Moroni, the classic example.

Because of them, it was preserved the way they "used" Phoenician and Greek language and characters, together with Hebrew, to organize their own and hybrid "family/group community of slaves" and their language, the Nephitic = SAB-ELLI's language, quite alike in Caractors language, even being living in the family of OLD ITALIC ALPHABETS.

Thus such "family-group" (of "good parents) of special "racial-religious group", quite alike some "Jewish groups" that were to live segregated in some nations for years ahead, had quite like their DIALECT for their INTERNAL USE. Thus they could use some characters that were of same meaning of those being used by surrounding people of OLD ITALIC ALPHABETS and replace them by same meaning and value characters from GREEK and PHOENICIAN characters. Could write to right or left or alternate.

For sure (due to their Priests) they were able even to write in Hebrew, knowing that Hebrew and Phoenician (and thus Greek and thus Sabellian = Nephitic) all were just REFORMED EGYPTIAN LANGUAGES and CHARACTERS: just originated from the same source, the same origin of semitic languages, at the same point in Sinai: originated from the same EGYPTIAN LANGUAGE.
Best personal regards, ELY - SAB.


Last edited by ELYSAB on Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 11:33 am 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:06 pm
Posts: 4284
Location: Des Plaines, IL
Chap wrote:
Would you be offended I suggested that you might modify the bolded bit to read 'being the particular type of Christian that I am'?

No. I actually thought about using a more qualified phrase for that reason, but I needed to finish the post and step away from my computer at the moment.

_________________
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:00 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
Droopy ~ Your questions:

Droopy wrote:
1.The First Vision.

It's possible that someone or something did appear to Joseph Smith in the grove. I don't believe it was God the Father & Jesus Christ telling Joseph Smith that all other Christian churches were wrong---I think that was added as Joseph Smith's theology and ecclesiology developed---but I'm not opposed to the idea that Joseph did really have some visionary experience there. The entirety of the 1832 account of the First Vision could have really happened and it would be completely consistent with my own theological worldview.


But there seems to be a problem of logical consistency here. You assert that elements of the 1832 are not compatible with your general worldview, and then claim immediately afterword that the entire account is. The 1832 version contains, among other things:

Quote:
I found that <mankind> did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatised from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ …


Quote:
the world lieth in sin and at this time and none doeth good no not one they have turned asside from the gospel and keep not (my) commandments they draw near to me with their lips while their hearts are far from me


The concept of the Great Apostasy and the need for a restoration of ministerial authority exists, in fundamental form, in the 1832 account. As later versions can be easily seen as nothing more than expansions of the original experience for different audiences and emphasizing different aspects of the same experience, it would appear that, in accepting the 1832 version, one must accept at least the possibility that the later versions are simply more inclusive and/or more detailed accounts of the whole. If you've already accepted the possibly of a vision, per se, then it would seem hasty to presume such an experience would not be parceled out, over time, as different audiences became open to the implications and ideas expressed in the totality of such an experience, an experience which may have gone on for hours, as far as we know.


Quote:
Droopy wrote:
2.The literal visit of Moroni to Joseph Smith and the physical reality of the gold plates.


Quote:
I don't believe that it happened. I don't know whether Joseph Smith intentionally made it all up to deceive people, whether he made it all up because he honestly believed in the power of his message and the need to augment that message (i .e. "pious fraud), or had some kind of Beautiful Mind-style mental illness that made him think it was real. I'm pretty apathetic on the matter.


Well, that's a pretty classic Signature Books kind of naturalistic/psychological explanation for pretty much all of Joseph's metaphysical experiences leading to the origin of the church. I would have to term this "anti-Mormon" in the sense that it directly confronts and denies core elements of what LDS understand to be the historic events leading to the restoration of the gospel.

Quote:
Droopy wrote:
3.The personal visitation to Joseph Smith and others of physical, resurrected beings, such as Moses, Abraham, Noah, Enoch, Peter, James, and John etc., to restore keys and ordinances.


Quote:
I don't believe that it happened and I don't believe in "priesthood" in the sense that Mormons teach it. I think the accounts of his ordinations to priesthoods by resurrected beings were added years later to deal with challenges to his authority in the church. Even Richard Bushman has stated that "the late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication" (RSR 75). I imagine it's a pretty standard take on the matter among non-LDS historians.


So this is, again, a direct oppositional perspective to that of the Church and the personal records of events left by the Church's founders. This would have to be understood as contra-Mormon, as the Church's origin claims must be rejected outright if your position is adopted.

Bushman is a careful scholar and, as far as I know, a faithful member. You have here implied that he is open to the possibility that the entire origin narrative of his religion, as well as its devine ministerial authority (priesthood), which he himself holds, is a fabrication. Are you sure you want to go there? Is it not rather quite possible that Bushman is simply, as a rigorous scholar, playing a kind of Devil's advocate by allowing that outside observers, looking at the same evidence, might conclude that the evidence supports later fabrication?

He doesn't say that it does, but allows intellectually honest people outside the Church to follow what the evidence appears to suggest, from within one kind of intellectual template.






Quote:
"The doctrine of preexistence."

I don't believe that it happened, although I don't think there's anything in the Bible that contradicts it. Kevin Barney's response to Chapter 3 of James Patrick Holding's The Mormon Defenders contains some work on non-LDS Christians who have taught preexistence.


Some of the major Church Fathers taught it, I am quite aware. But if you don't accept this core concept, then this again, is "contra" to settled church teaching.

Quote:
Droopy wrote:
The whole "misogyny" claim I consider to be nothing more than a libel, and a deeply tendentious, if not mendacious one at that.


Quote:
Well, you're wrong on all counts. And the fact that I critiqued a single Latter-day Saint whose behavior I strenuously objected to (and believed to be very much out of harmony with the teachings of his church) does not make me an "anti-Mormon."


No, I'm not wrong on any counts. I looked at all the evidence you posted, saw a few things that were improper and over-the-top on Will's part, some claims about him that were highly exaggerated and way overwrought, and other things that were clearly a psychological ploy, overwrought to the extent that I suspected a strong feminist streak in the author of the claims of "misogyny." Mysogyny, is, in the way you and others used it against Will, and like "racist," "sexist," and "homophobe," politically correct throwaway lines used to poison the well against existential ideological threats that one feels cannot be critically examined and your case made through rational argument.

When you then claim that you do not argue from the Left, when using its tactics and intellectual categories, are not feminist, when using its intellectual categories and language, and not anti-Mormon when much of your personal views are, indeed, in strong contradiction to core LDS truth claims, and you spend substantial time here on a notorious anti-Mormon message board supporting and boostering the views and psychology of other vehement anti-Mormons, you send mixed messages and create suspicions that you're trying to be all things to everyone while hiding your core perspectives behind a mask of scholarly disinterest.

Perhaps this is part of the reason, as well as the way you tend to retreat behind a wall of snark when challenged strongly, why others here find you a divisive figure.
Quote:
Pretty disingenuous of you to cite this thread without citing my thorough and in-depth response,


I don't even remember my participation in that thread. Over a year ago, and one of countless threads on Joseph's sex life? Clearly, some people invest much more time and intellectual energy in this place than I do. My participation, since the Will dogpile, has been, at the very best, minimal.

Quote:
I don't deny having feminist inclinations or critiquing the way the LDS church treats women, just as I critique the way many evangelical denominations treat women.


But you balked when I first made the claim a long time back. So too you reacted when I openly claimed you had leftist, secularist views. Now, you admit to being an "egalitarian," (i.e., socialist). You are not "anti-Mormon," and yet hold views that would, if accepted, unravel the entire body of core truth claims upon which the Church is erected.

All very interesting.

Until it becomes mind numbingly boring.

Quote:
I have a daughter who is a member of record with the church and attends the LDS church with her father at least twice a month. I think I would be an irresponsible parent if I didn't keep tabs on what others are teaching my daughter about her identity. None of that makes me "anti-Mormon"


Based on numerous positions you've taken in this forum, I think reasonable people could disagree with this characterization.

Quote:
though, or else I would also be "anti-evangelical." What it makes me is "anti-patriarchy," or maybe "anti-male-privilege."


Classic, textbook radical feminist intellectual categories (the mythical "patriarchy" standing in here for the "bourgeois" in an earlier template from which much of the philosophical substructure of second and third wave feminism was taken)

Quote:
I have repeatedly clarified that a good number of feminists wouldn't think I am a feminist because I'm pro-life. I don't have a problem identifying as a feminist, but many of them would object.


So here, again, you are and you aren't. Reminds me of that old Chuck Berry song, Reelin' and Rockin':

"Sometimes I will, then again I think I won't
Sometimes I will, then again I think I won't
Sometimes I do, then again I think I don't"

Quote:
Yeah, that's right Droopy, I'm a "leftist." The kind of "leftist" who can count the number of Democrats that she's voted for on one hand.


Whatever. I'm not nearly as interested in your cries of foul as I am in the arguments you actually make here.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Last edited by Droopy on Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:47 pm, edited 13 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:17 pm 
θεά
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 11:06 pm
Posts: 4284
Location: Des Plaines, IL
I'll get to the First Vision stuff, Bushman, and the rest of your post later today, Droopy, but first I want to ask about this:

Droopy wrote:
Well, that's a pretty classic Signature Books kind of naturalistic/psychological explanation for pretty much all of Joseph's metaphysical experiences leading to the origin of the church. I would have to term this "anti-Mormon" in the sense that it directly confronts and denies core elements of what LDS understand to be the historic events leading to the restoration of the gospel.

[SNIP]

So this is, again, a direct oppositional perspective to that of the Church and the personal records of events left by the Church's founders. This would have to be understood as contra-Mormon, as the Church's origin claims must be rejected outright if your position is adopted.

[SNIP]

But if you don't accept this core concept, then this again, is "contra" to settled church teaching.

Okay. So, what sort of answers would a non-member have to give to your questions 2, 3, and 4 in order to not be considered "anti-Mormon" by you?

Because non-Mormons do deny core elements of what the LDS church claims and teaches. If we didn't, we probably wouldn't be non-Mormons; we'd be Mormons.

_________________
"It seems to me that these women were the head (κεφάλαιον) of the church which was at Philippi." ~ John Chrysostom, Homilies on Philippians 13

My Blogs: Weighted Glory | Worlds Without End: A Mormon Studies Roundtable | Twitter


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:28 pm 
B.H. Roberts Chair of Mopologetic Studies
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:44 am
Posts: 7458
Location: Cassius University
Droopy wrote:
Blixa wrote:
Believe me, I'll try to learn my lesson to never engage with you again. But I can't let this lie pass. You have a short memory.



I don't lie. I'll leave that to the amoeboid creatures that float about in the Cesspark seeking whom they can devour. I don't recall a single instance when you've ever engaged me here in which you were not in full vision-of-the-anointed mode.

Never engage me again? You won't get any argument from me there.


Get a grip, Droopy. "Vision of the anointed"? All it takes for you to get defensive is for someone to merely hint that they've gotten an education.

Oh, and I haven't forgotten that you said my "child" was "in rehab" due to me being such a terrible parent. Way to keep it classy, Droopy.

_________________
"[I]f, while hoping that everybody else will be honest and so forth, I can personally prosper through unethical and immoral acts without being detected and without risk, why should I not?." --Daniel Peterson, 6/4/14


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:56 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
Get a grip, Droopy. "Vision of the anointed"? All it takes for you to get defensive is for someone to merely hint that they've gotten an education.


Oh no, I love people who actually have an education. What I have problems with is half-educated leftists who are stuffed into a small, high temperature academic niche (especially in the humanities or "social sciences") from within which they look out upon the world as if that niche was the prism from within which the world could actually be understood.

Not a single book Gad asked me to produce, as ones I thought a leftist should be familiar with even registered with Blixa, did they Scratch? Not a one. I wonder if even the classic continental philosophers I mentioned as key to leftist thought lit up any bulbs in that room. You even wondered out loud if I actually had those authors on my shelves.

Really, Scratch, you and the posse here keep exposing yourselves, time and again, as a self satisfied - but deeply intellectually insecure - coterie of the Annointed; secular, leftist intellectual snobs who find themselves continually flummoxed and sent into paroxysms by others who actually, really, and truly are "educated" in the classic sense.

Much of what goes on in the modern academy is not education, but more like a carefully selected and circumscribed catechism. Blixa, and a number of others here, are the products of that system. Or rather, they allowed themselves to become products of it. Some of the people around here, judging from what went on last night, are also the products of severely dysfunctional family environments.

I survived my K-12 education, and then heavily educated myself for a quarter century before returning to academia. That makes all the difference in the world. That, and having a deeply rooted background in the restored gospel.

Quote:
Oh, and I haven't forgotten that you said my "child" was "in rehab" due to me being such a terrible parent. Way to keep it classy, Droopy.


I don't even know that you have a child, Scratch. It was just return fire to level the playing field upon which you had already thrown your butt plugs.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Last edited by Droopy on Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 12:59 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 13629
Location: On the imaginary axis
Doctor Scratch wrote:
...
Oh, and I haven't forgotten that you said my "child" was "in rehab" due to me being such a terrible parent. Way to keep it classy, Droopy.


Droopy said that?

If so, yuk, and shame on Droopy. If not, please correct.

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:08 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
Chap wrote:
Doctor Scratch wrote:
...
Oh, and I haven't forgotten that you said my "child" was "in rehab" due to me being such a terrible parent. Way to keep it classy, Droopy.


Droopy said that?

If so, yuk, and shame on Droopy. If not, please correct.



It was an insulting jest, apropos to the vulgar insults and references Scratch had already thrown my way (along with the other members of the chat room last night, trading in ferry loads of four letter sexual references, explicit banter about sex and menstruation, and a continual slide show of gay porn and temple garments).

True enough, I shouldn't have been drawn into it, but, being human, sometimes I like a little dust up with the posse.

Now, I thought this was all against board rules?

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:10 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 10:06 am
Posts: 9826
Location: Kershaw, SC
I could have told Scratch to go up to a dam and watch a beaver eat his jacket, but, you know, for certain people, that's a misogynistic sexual reference.

You one can't win for losing around here.

_________________
Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson


I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

- Thomas Sowell


Last edited by Droopy on Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Schryver from Kinderhook Bomb
PostPosted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 1:11 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:23 am
Posts: 13629
Location: On the imaginary axis
Chap wrote:
Doctor Scratch wrote:
...
Oh, and I haven't forgotten that you said my "child" was "in rehab" due to me being such a terrible parent. Way to keep it classy, Droopy.


Droopy said that?

If so, yuk, and shame on Droopy. If not, please correct.



Droopy wrote:


It was an insulting jest, apropos to the vulgar insults and references Scratch had already thrown my way (along with the other members of the chat room last night, trading in ferry loads of four letter sexual references, explicit banter about sex and menstruation, and a continual slide show of gay porn and temple garments).

True enough, I shouldn't have been drawn into it, but, being human, sometimes I like a little dust up with the posse.

Now, I thought this was all against board rules?


So you're sorry for what you did, and will try not to do it again? Please?

_________________
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 226 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dr LOD, Google [Bot], Philo Sofee, Stem and 31 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group