LDS Inoculation - Good or Bad?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Jay has a vagina. Not a surprise.

I learned from watching some of your previous threads to bow out quickly if it gets to this.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I learned from watching some of your previous threads to bow out quickly if it gets to this.

lol...typical Jay...be the first to throw out an insult..he gets one back and then can't handle it...but it would be wise on your part to prevent yourself from getting your ass handed to you.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

lol...typical Jay...be the first to throw out an insult..he gets one back and then can't handle it...but it would be wise on your part to prevent yourself from getting your ass handed to you.

peace Rocky. own your goatee.

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't believe the only interpretation of events is he filled in the details to shore up authority. In fact, it is too simplistic.

I find it more believable that his first emphasis upon going into the woods was his own salvation, and how he could get forgiveness. Where do I go?

Now this all assumes there could be truth to what Joseph said, if you have come to a conclusion he is a lying sack of crap, then you won't follow.

However, he goes and is told your sins are forgiven and don't join. Joseph's relieved and as a fourteen year old, didn't really care about the rest. He doesn't really tell anybody but family for a long time and then goes about growing up. As he learns more about religion and reflects upon it, some of the details become more important. That's equally plausible given what we know.

This still does not explain the claim that he was persecuted for telling others about his vision. This account has been cannonized by the LDS Church. You can't have it both ways.

Either Joseph kept the details beyond forgivness of sins to himself until later (Hence no persecution) or he told folks the full version of events as we have it in the PofGP (Which would have led to persecution). The problem is he claims to have been persecuted for telling people about the PofGP version but the people who were proud to have persecuted him never mentioned it. They were fired up about the Golden Plates but not his vision. Something Stinks.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Taq Man

This still does not explain the claim that he was persecuted for telling others about his vision. This account has been cannonized by the LDS Church. You can't have it both ways.

Either Joseph kept the details beyond forgivness of sins to himself until later (Hence no persecution) or he told folks the full version of events as we have it in the PofGP (Which would have led to persecution). The problem is he claims to have been persecuted for telling people about the PofGP version but the people who were proud to have persecuted him never mentioned it. They were fired up about the Golden Plates but not his vision. Something Stinks.

The persecution angle seems to me that he remembers being persecuted and he may have "felt" it was attributed to his visions and other declarations. We may be receiving his later feelings and Joseph may be conflating his overall persecution together with his first experience.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by jay santos

peace Rocky. own your goatee.

Peace back. Enjoy the vagina.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Peace back. Enjoy the vagina.

Some of us do, quite frequently.

[Taq Man]

Originally Posted by Archaea

The persecution angle seems to me that he remembers being persecuted and he may have "felt" it was attributed to his visions and other declarations. We may be receiving his later feelings and Joseph may be conflating his overall persecution together with his first experience.

Given the narrative in the PofGP (.. why persecute me for telling the truth, for I did see a light and 2 personages and they did in fact speak to me....) I'm paraphrasing of course. Given this narrative I find your explanation to be a bit of a stretch but I suppose it's possible.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The fundamental problem is that the LDS Church uses terminology and some methods of judicial systems and empricism such as "witnesses" and "testimony," and and then when somebody takes up the challenge and demonstrates such thing as changed stories, lack of original documents, implausibility, character issues on the part of affiants and alleged divine conduits, and a penchant for outright lying on the part of the affiants or alleged dinvine conduits, etc. (again, the usual stuff of empiricism or a judicial proceeding) the LDS Church says this type of approach is not fair or appropriate when judging a religion.

The LDS Church wants its history and documents tested empirically, but only in kangaroo courts and show trials. No cross-examination, and no full disclosure. The LDS Church should stop the pretense of historicity and "testimonies" and proofs and instead focus on spirituality. But this won't happen while its members are complicit in the LDS Church treating them like children. Meanwhile, LDS gatherings are about as sterile and boring as any you'll find in any religion. Comments on this board about only one sacrament meeting all year more or less being not deadly boring, people chronically reading their handheld computers or sleeping in church, etc. testify to that. It shouldn't be that way.

Sterling McMurrin addressed this in his (in)famous, splendid 7th East Press interview.

Little passages like these are what keeps me reading this forum. This is one of the most insightful posts I've read in a long, long time. (Of course, it has gone heretofore unremarked.) Regardless of which side of the paradox you find yourself, SU here cogently defines the tension between "witness" and "faith" that the LDS religion struggles to resolve.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Solon

Little passages like these are what keeps me reading this forum. This is one of the most insightful posts I've read in a long, long time. (Of course, it has gone heretofore unremarked.) Regardless of which side of the paradox you find yourself, SU here cogently defines the tension between "witness" and "faith" that the LDS religion struggles to resolve.

Well it went unremarked because he laced his language with troll bait, but nobody bit. If it had been less slanted, he might have engaged.