Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
I've a whole chunk of my family tree gone dark too, and I don't think the answer is that simple.

Well, the nazis were quite explicit on their racial theories and classifications. Gypsies were not sent to death for religious reasons either.

Evil & Chaos wrote:
To be fair, they also draw from eastern religions and so can't really be considered classical abrohamic, they're closer to being a universalist or omnistic flavour of faith.

That's not false. It all boils down to the precise definition of Abrahamic that one choose to use.

Evil & Chaos wrote:

All warfare can be traced back to population pressure and trade routes.

I think your own fondness for religion is giving you the same kind of confirmation bias you're accusing me of (in reverse), albeit I don't hold that religion is always (or even often) the main cause for war, only that it is often a contributory factor (IE: I'm not taking an extreme black/white position).

I actively dislike religion. I'm not an atheist, I take a far more neutral postion. I just disagree with you on things you are factually wrong about. (I.E. WW2 was a religious war on the part of at least two factions)

Thanks for assuming though!

In other news http://thoughtsonliberty.com/why-i-left-the-church-to-find-freedom

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'm not an atheist, I take a far more neutral postion.

Please elaborate. There is only question being asked here - "do you believe in god". It's a binary yes/no proposition, either you do (= theist) or don't (= atheist). I'm not seeing the scope for a 'neutral' position on the question.

 Riquende wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'm not an atheist, I take a far more neutral postion.

Please elaborate. There is only question being asked here - "do you believe in god". It's a binary yes/no proposition, either you do (= theist) or don't (= atheist). I'm not seeing the scope for a 'neutral' position on the question.

Well to be fair he could be agnostic. One could always face the two choices given and choose neither.

 Riquende wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'm not an atheist, I take a far more neutral postion.

Please elaborate. There is only question being asked here - "do you believe in god". It's a binary yes/no proposition, either you do (= theist) or don't (= atheist). I'm not seeing the scope for a 'neutral' position on the question.

When faced with a "yes or no" answer always seek a different option. Grimskul is correct. I'm agnostic. I can't answer a question I don't have enough knowledge to provide an accurate answer to.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Riquende wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
I'm not an atheist, I take a far more neutral postion.

Please elaborate. There is only question being asked here - "do you believe in god". It's a binary yes/no proposition, either you do (= theist) or don't (= atheist). I'm not seeing the scope for a 'neutral' position on the question.

When faced with a "yes or no" answer always seek a different option. Grimskul is correct. I'm agnostic. I can't answer a question I don't have enough knowledge to provide an accurate answer to.

If you can't answer the question "do you believe in (a) god(s)" in the affirmative, then you're an atheist.

An agnostic is a different thing, pretty sure this was covered just a couple of pages back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here it is:

 Riquende wrote:


Agnosticism and Atheism are two seperate things entirely, the first deals with knowledge (which is a subset of belief) and the second deals with belief. It's entirely possible to be an Agnostic Atheist (and I think most Atheists would claim to be so if they're being intellectually honest) just as it's possible to be an Agnostic Theist.

It's not a sliding scale that runs Theist - Agnostic - Athiest, they're positions on two different questions.

I take a far more neutral postion.

Well then I think you're taking neutrality much too far - the idea that the middle east would still be riven between two mutually hostile groups of allied states (Sunni and Shia) without the factor of "who should lead the Caliphate after Mohammad's death" is irrational, and the idea that it has nothing to do with religion and is only a question as to "who has power in the mortal realm" is taking things to far - religions, like all human creations, are intrinsically linked with real-world socio-political power (that being the only kind of power that isn't imaginary).

Heck, one can make a solid argument that without the Sunni/Shia split, the regime change in Iraq (to pick a recent example) would have proceeded very differently, as 90% Al-Queda's violent response to the invasion was not to attack the western forces, but was to attack Shia Mosques and Shia neighborhoods in order to intentionally provoke internecine warfare - this they achieved, leading to a decade (so far) of Sunni/Shia strife in Iraq.

It's not irrational at all. Ancient roots based on tribalism and the control of temporal power aside (which is what the caliphate really represents) we're talking about fighting that's been going on since the 5th century. Go talk to an actual sunni or shia muslim "over there" sometime. They'll be happy to give you a long list of grievances about those other guys over there, ranging in importance from "The minority population seized control of our government and oppressed the feth out of us" to "they killed my brother's goat". Any thought of the caliphate is as dead as that position actually is. The Arabian peninsula with riven with strife and tribal warfare long before Mohammed carried his message to his people, and as we have seen it still is long after. The tribes of Afghanistan have been killing the gak out of each other as long as they've been living in Afghanistan. Religion's just another excuse.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
When faced with a "yes or no" answer always seek a different option.

When faced with a yes or no question, do you really always select a different option ? Yes, or no ?

(Sorry, had to do it )

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
They'll be happy to give you a long list of grievances about those other guys over there, ranging in importance from "The minority population seized control of our government and oppressed the feth out of us" to "they killed my brother's goat".

Yeah, but why do they still consider themselves two separate groups even though living close, and usually under the same government, for so long ? Why didn't they blend into a common identity ?
Religion, I guess.

Yeah, but do they still consider themselves two separate groups even though living close, and usually under the same government, for so long ? Why didn't they blend into a common identity ?
Religion, I guess.

Bingo.

Sorry for the delay in responding - I was elsewhere.

E & C, can you please do us all, but especially me, a great favor?
Connect us to primary documentation for your charges.
You do know the difference between primary and secondary sources, right?
Everything you linked us to were secondary sources, which are almost always questionable and do always have a bias.

And please leave the Tanners in the gutter where they deserve to be.
They were jokes that were never funny.
E&C, do you not know the difference between serious historical researchers and people with an axe to grind?

E&C, I want connections to factual and LEGAL documentation about Joseph Smith, Jr.'s wrongdoing.
Not alleged facsimiles, not to people who are actually propagandists and not historians, not to any of the many overally tired accusations that non-Mormon historians have proved over and over to be only false charges and pure wishes of anti-Mormons over the last nearly 200 years.
Is that so impossible for you E & C?
Legal facts is what I need; everything else is simply propaganda at best - at worse, a total waste of everyone's attention here, Dakka's electrons and my precious time.

As to your personal beliefs as to deity or not, well, that point of view is what you have stewed up for you and you will held responsible for it.
Why you want to "season" the stew the way you have, is only obvious to you.
Life is how it is and it does not help us, the test takers, if either the proctor or the test maker steps in all of the time and cheats for us because we think they need to.
I am sorry you feel life is so unfair; fairness was never promised and justice was only promised to be served at the final judgement.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
They'll be happy to give you a long list of grievances about those other guys over there, ranging in importance from "The minority population seized control of our government and oppressed the feth out of us" to "they killed my brother's goat".

Yeah, but why do they still consider themselves two separate groups even though living close, and usually under the same government, for so long ? Why didn't they blend into a common identity ?
Religion, I guess.

you really don't need religion. I'm not about to detail my personal life, but, I've had nothing but abuse or mistreatment at the hands of my brother. There's no reason to describe the context of that behavior, but after a certain incident sometime last year I realized that his effort at making things nice really just boiled down to being a facade. You don't need religion, religion is just a convenient excuse. Even the reasons KM lists, while reasonable, are more than the necessary criterion. It could be as little as condescension and a sense of an entitled self-serving, or manipulative, freeloading, non-contributive behaviour. It could be as little as just that kind of a splinter beneath the skin, and then you start finding excuses for this that and the other. Religion inevitable creeps into it. Either a differing point on one aspect of doctrine, broad interpretations.... you name it.

 poda_t wrote:
you really don't need religion. I'm not about to detail my personal life, but, I've had nothing but abuse or mistreatment at the hands of my brother. There's no reason to describe the context of that behavior, but after a certain incident sometime last year I realized that his effort at making things nice really just boiled down to being a facade. You don't need religion, religion is just a convenient excuse. Even the reasons KM lists, while reasonable, are more than the necessary criterion. It could be as little as condescension and a sense of an entitled self-serving, or manipulative, freeloading, non-contributive behaviour. It could be as little as just that kind of a splinter beneath the skin, and then you start finding excuses for this that and the other. Religion inevitable creeps into it. Either a differing point on one aspect of doctrine, broad interpretations.... you name it.

That is a very sad statement poda_t.
The actions of one have prevented you from reaching out to faith.
Even more because religion and faith, real quality religion and faith, is supposed to more about serving others than it is about serving oneself.

Here's hoping poda_t that faith will find you without something catastrophic happening in your life.
Though I must admit, one generally does not change one's attitude about faith and/or religion without a "Hatch, Match or Dispatch" event, and I have seen many times the "Dispatch" event being the required trigger.
With so many deciding not to these days, the "Match" event will occur far less often in the future; not enough rich grannys looking for an heir that is properly married to keep those numbers up in the UK or in the US.
And indiscriminate promiscuity throughout the First World and the normal results of it, has demeaned "Hatch" to just a physical process that should be able to be stopped whenever the parties involved want it to be because the product is inconvenient for them or is totally unwanted in their eyes.

No, religion and faith have become quite inconvenient to the modern social man.
They require moral fiber and behaviors that are just not the in thing any more.

For someone concerned with getting primary evidence on joseph smith (though i am not sure why copies of court papers are not good enough for you on this...) i am not sure how you can then go on to not produce any evidence at all for the existance of your (or any other) god and seemingly be happy with some vague feelings and the utterly cobbled together tripe that is most religious texts...

 DouglasJB wrote:

 poda_t wrote:
you really don't need religion. I'm not about to detail my personal life, but, I've had nothing but abuse or mistreatment at the hands of my brother. There's no reason to describe the context of that behavior, but after a certain incident sometime last year I realized that his effort at making things nice really just boiled down to being a facade. You don't need religion, religion is just a convenient excuse. Even the reasons KM lists, while reasonable, are more than the necessary criterion. It could be as little as condescension and a sense of an entitled self-serving, or manipulative, freeloading, non-contributive behaviour. It could be as little as just that kind of a splinter beneath the skin, and then you start finding excuses for this that and the other. Religion inevitable creeps into it. Either a differing point on one aspect of doctrine, broad interpretations.... you name it.

That is a very sad statement poda_t.
The actions of one have prevented you from reaching out to faith.
Even more because religion and faith, real quality religion and faith, is supposed to more about serving others than it is about serving oneself.

Here's hoping poda_t that faith will find you without something catastrophic happening in your life.
Though I must admit, one generally does not change one's attitude about faith and/or religion without a "Hatch, Match or Dispatch" event, and I have seen many times the "Dispatch" event being the required trigger.
With so many deciding not to these days, the "Match" event will occur far less often in the future; not enough rich grannys looking for an heir that is properly married to keep those numbers up in the UK or in the US.
And indiscriminate promiscuity throughout the First World and the normal results of it, has demeaned "Hatch" to just a physical process that should be able to be stopped whenever the parties involved want it to be because the product is inconvenient for them or is totally unwanted in their eyes.

No, religion and faith have become quite inconvenient to the modern social man.
They require moral fiber and behaviors that are just not the in thing any more.

oh heck no. What made me despise religion and see a distinction between the raw concept of faith, as applicable to science, and the concept of faith in something that... well, fails to provide advancment and tends to be used to justify ridiculous behaviours like, genocide, racism, the violation of human rights, marginalization of minorities, etc..... well long story short, I saw the hypocrisy of my parish, and began to see inconsistencies in religious doctrine. Thorough investigation led me to judaism, which, turns out to also have been abused and taken from elsewhere, which...... also had its source elsewhere. That made me think and drew me to the conclusion that the entire thing is ridiculous, proposterous and has been abused throughout history by madmen and men of power to subjugate and control others. I have a problem when a holy book at one point describes a whole-sale extermination of a city, followed by "and <<insert deity>> saw that it was good".... I'll be honest, being in a parish, where engages devoutly during mass, but then proceeds to violate every single lesson in the coffee social--or relate instances of such violation in a mutually/self-congratulatory manner... well.... well well well.... And this isn't just one parish I'm talking about. I've been to several, in different communities.

for me, religion isn't an inconvenience because it requires me to act morally. It's an inconvenience because some of the behaviors it considers "moral" I happen to find objectionable if not outright reprehensible and antithetical to human social progress. Mutilation of the body, obstruction of scientific development, theft, hypocritical behaviour, conflicting/contradictory teachings and behaviour, repression of minorities, jihad, crusade. Again, in most of these cases, religion has been seconded and used as another tool for subjugation of some form, but it is one that I find reprehensible, because it commits people to do ill acts, or to accept ill acts to continue to happen, because, if they don't, then they will burn in some imaginary hell of some madman's making.

If a man today, goes before a congregation and says god told him to raise an army and, say, go kill jews, or arabs, or muslims, or shriners, i think you will agree that people will assume that person is mentally ill, and needs therapy, or medication, or both. Why then should I not use the same standard to evaluate the past? Why does it receive a special reverence when the madmen raving about commandments from god about purging this that or the other are just as alive now as they were then. We know these people today need therapy, medication or institutionalization where rehabilitation is not possible.... Following through with the exercise of thought, it makes no sense to continue believing in this.

As to the serving the betterment of community? Oh, how often I've run into these devout religious types that love to go on about how community minded they are, but then i look at their habits which exhibit tendencies to opulence, luxury, theft and a failure to live up to the expectations of the faith. I'm not even going to start about the ridiculous witch-hunt attitude against communism that's still prevalent across north america, despite the fact that the lifestyle Jesus taught, who is supposed to be the herald and saviour of the vast majority of the people living in north america, what can fundamentally be described as a communist lifestyle. You preach a lack of moral fiber, but it just highlights to me again the lack of consistency of a religious mindset. It just strikes me as fundamentally strange that a society supposedly built around securing people's rights, whose inhabitants are dominantly christian, proceed to engage in witch-hunts vilifying and decrying anyone that has even a remotely socialist approach to governance.Your jab at rich grannies not looking hard enough for properly married heirs may have been an attempt at humor, but that just points out my problem all the same.

The ridiculous idea of some afterlife does nothing to better our lives here, because it drills the idea "oh, but it will be better in the other place". How do we make our lives better here then, if the core thought in our heads is "it will be better in the next life"? We can't, because we will never commit ourselves to our fullest capacity in truly helping each other. We dedicate a couple of odd hours here and there, a couple of bucks, and that's that.

you make broad sweeping generalizations about how "the first world" is demoralized by "turning away" from jesus. Look, buddy, Let's go back a bit. Celts? Aztecs? Assyrians? Spartans? Mongols? Huns? Vikings? heck, the Romans and Egyptians weren't so rosy either. This is nothing new, and to suggest that "it's because they didn't know christ", well, let's look at Europe shall we? Heard of the 30 years war? you know, where there was a small hissyfit over doctrines in christianity? you know, the one that saw eight million dead? What about the crusades, and the slavery perpetrated, again, by christians? I'm not calling christians out as being unique, I'm saying it's all the same garbage all around. I can also pull an example out of my own ethnic history: Koppany is always painted as a backwards barbarian hungarian, while St. Stephen is the spiritual liberator of Hungary. Well, turns out Koppany wasn't pagan, he was orthodox. And St. Stephen? Well, when he took the crown of hungary, he died without heirs, so it was Koppany's offspring that took the crown (another forgotten fact) who proceeded to then systematicall persecute non roman catholics. That's just the violence bit, what about the fornication? Honestly, I'm not going to touch this... because in my quest through history I found a number of interesting traditions and customs that existed throughout christendom that involved--or resulted in--fornication. Outside of wedlock. And supported if not sponsored or led by the church. Some of them are still celebrated today.

After all is said and done, I also find the concept of prayer disgusting. Sitting and wishing another person well? How is that supposed to help? What does it physically do for the other person? How does it make others help? Act! do something! Intent is a component of action, but intention alone is meaningless.

I've been at this for a while, and any attempt at trying to filter or clean this will jsut make this a more confusing mess and probably drag it out even longer.

 DouglasJB wrote:
Sorry for the delay in responding - I was elsewhere.

E & C, can you please do us all, but especially me, a great favor?
Connect us to primary documentation for your charges.

I'm sure that those court documents are available to view in person upon request.

You do know the difference between primary and secondary sources, right?
Everything you linked us to were secondary sources, which are almost always questionable and do always have a bias.

Authenticated court documents are primary sources.

And please leave the Tanners in the gutter where they deserve to be.
They were jokes that were never funny.
E&C, do you not know the difference between serious historical researchers and people with an axe to grind?

I know the difference between an open mind, and one unable to approach independently verified primary source documents as offering any kind of evidence at all.

E&C, I want connections to factual and LEGAL documentation about Joseph Smith, Jr.'s wrongdoing.
Not alleged facsimiles, not to people who are actually propagandists and not historians, not to any of the many overally tired accusations that non-Mormon historians have proved over and over to be only false charges and pure wishes of anti-Mormons over the last nearly 200 years.

So says the Mormon church.
Maybe try listening to someone who doesn't have a vested interest in maintaining the power structure of the church.

Is that so impossible for you E & C?
Legal facts is what I need; everything else is simply propaganda at best - at worse, a total waste of everyone's attention here, Dakka's electrons and my precious time.

I gave you legal facts. You are apparently unable to process them.

As to your personal beliefs as to deity or not, well, that point of view is what you have stewed up for you and you will held responsible for it.

So says the Mormon church.
And the Jewish sages, and the Islamic Immams, and the witch doctor upon the mountain.
It's all the same meaningless static to me, as silly as a legally convicted conman dictating a religion out of a hat.

Why you want to "season" the stew the way you have, is only obvious to you.

You seem to think that I give any credence at all to your myths.
I don't feel I'm "seasoning" my time in Hell, because I don't believe in Hell; None of my actions are undertaken in order to either move towards or away from "Hell".
And not the Christian Hell nor the Mormon Hell nor the Islamic Hell, for that matter.
And not for Kharmic reincarnation or to please my spirit-ancestors nor to keep the bad joo-joo from my door.

My actions are for the benefit of myself, my family, and mankind in general.
My actions are not undertaken in fear of, or in obeyance of, bronze age myths.

Life is how it is and it does not help us, the test takers, if either the proctor or the test maker steps in all of the time and cheats for us because we think they need to.

So says the Mormon church.

Incidentally, God loves to prove himself extant in the Bible.

Miracles, physical manifestations of the Spirit as a column of smoke & pillar of fire observed by tens of thousands, sending himself to earth in the form of Jesus to perform more miracles, showing up in person to have long and detailed conversations with many people, etc.

If God is eternal and perfect, why was it "perfect" to provide evidence for his existence upon request in ancient days (just ask the priests of Baal what happens when you ask for proof of God's existence!), yet nowadays it's "perfect" to never undertake any miracles, and manifestations, and great works, other than for conmen and madmen.

Can you show me a verified miracle that occurred due to Mormonism being true?
I assure you it would convert me in an instant to Mormonism if you could do that.

I am sorry you feel life is so unfair; fairness was never promised and justice was only promised to be served at the final judgement.

So says the Mormon church.

You say so many very specific things with such absolute certainty.
Such things, no human could ever claim to know with authenticity, unless they can give more tangible proof of their faith than "it makes me feel nice".
Can you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DouglasJB wrote:
No, religion and faith have become quite inconvenient to the modern social man.
They require moral fiber and behaviors that are just not the in thing any more.

...you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.
Leviticus 25:44
What kind of moral fibre and behavior promotes slavery?



If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.
Exodus 21:2

So if your slave is a Jew, he only serves for six years, but notice, the Hebrew slave is given a choice - freedom and separation from his wife & children, or slavery forever.
What kind of moral fibre and behavior is that?


When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her.
Exodus 21:7
You may sell your daughter as a slave. What kind of moral fibre and behavior is that?


When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.
Exodus 21:20
You may beat your slaves as long as they don't die. What kind of moral fibre and behavior is that?


Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.
Ephesians 6:5
Jesus agreed with slavery. What kind of moral fibre and behavior is that?


Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.
Timothy 6:1
Jesus agreeing with slavery again. What kind of moral fibre and behavior is that?

The disobedient slave will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."
Luke 12:47
Jesus not only agreeing with slavery, but in context is comparing the relationship between a slave and his master to the relationship between humans and Jesus. What kind of moral fibre and behavior is that?



You shall not covet your neighbor's house;
you shall not covet your neighbor's wife,
or his male slave, or his female slave, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.”
The Tenth Commandment, Exodus
The Ten Commandments, supposedly the foundation of all Abrohamic morality ***, referring to slavery as an expected state of being. What kind of moral fibre and behavior is that?




From its inception until 1978, the Mormon Church taught that black people couldn't become priests or lay preachers (unlike the majority of white Mormons, who are expected to become lay priests & missionaries) because they were eternally cursed to wear the mark of Cain upon their skin, being descended from Cain the fratricide, son of Adam & Eve.
What kind of moral fibre and behavior is that?



***
And as an aside: It lumps in your neighbour's wife along with the rest of his property. What kind of moral fibre and behavior is that?



.

 poda_t wrote:
you really don't need religion.

Well, in this specific case, I think it was because of religion. Not saying it always has to be religion, just that here it's what caused those people to still see themselves as two separate groups.
And no disrespect intended, but your story seems much more like some personal problems between two brothers than two different groups not considering they belong to the same people.

SilverMK2, copies are no good because indeed they are copies - allegedly.
In this day of skilled computer fraud and back in the '70s and '80s with skilled surface and ink fraud, copies are not valid proof of anything.

Have none of you taken any history classes at the tertiary level?
There have been some huge frauds done as far as historical documents, and anyone with a quality historical education knows that.
Copies are not legitimate sources unless one can validate the credentials of those whose hands have "carried" the copy and even then, they are suspect in most historical fora and nearly every legal fora.
This is the environment I worked for years and find no valid reason to not apply it here to this subject, who was a candidate for the Presidency in the Election of 1844.
That was the environment I first ran into him.

Why do I have to prove God is real, imaginary or otherwise for you SilverMK2?
Holy writ is full of persons God Himself proved His existence to and Christ, His divinity to, and they still denied God was real and Christ was divine.
With E&C, I am simply asking for valid historical proofs of legal events that happened in four American states less than two hundred years ago, and he is just not bothering to toe the mark.

SilverMK2, I bet E&C still thinks the Salamander Letter and its compatriots are real historical documents, instead of very clever fakes.
The perp, Hoffman, was quite cunning; he took ink from the 1830s and matched it up to parchment about that old too and combined them.
He fooled several experts, who then "authenticated" these alleged Mormon writings and previously undiscovered poems of historical writers and more.
You know what happened SilverMk2?
Hoffman got greedy and in debt.
So he made more undiscovered writings in a wider scope and that got him caught.
Some, including the Salamander Letter, were analysed with a mass spectrometer (one of the first the FBI owned) and the joining was found to be modern; they looked completely real otherwise.
What a hoax!
And SilverMK2, there are folks like E&C still believe that Hoffman's papers are real; they say it was a Mormon Conspiracy that faked the lab results for all; one problem - not a single Mormon was employed anywhere at the lab in New York that proved the papers to be a hoax, let alone in the labs in Philadelphia or Dallas that followed up on the results; granted, there were and are Mormons at the FBI labs in Washington D.C. and Quantico.
But still, folks like E&C will claim it is all a Mormon Conspiracy.

E&C, E&C, (head shaking) you are certainly quick with the accusation, but glacially slow, if that even, when it comes to giving me proofs that can stand the scales of justice, let alone the meager judgement of man.
E&C, you sir, are a lost cause so therefore I am too - so far.
You only point me to people, who have been proven wrong by NON-MORMONs, and to alleged factual documents you link to that are not PRIMARY sources, but alleged copies of them, also mostly disproved by non-Mormon experts in their fields.

And then you try to accuse me of trying to convert you to Mormonism!
Why in the world would I try to do that?
I am looking for proof that will stand in the courtroom, let alone any other valid debate, that Joseph Smith, Jr. was a fraud and a charlatan.
I had and have no interest in you becoming a Mormon now or in the future.

And E&C, have you listened to any Christian church out there really.
Or any service group, faith collection or any person
"So says the Mormon Church" is getting tiresome when I hear so much of what you say that to at the Presbyterian church, have heard it in the Methodist church and have heard it at the Catholic church.
On top of all that E&C, I have even heard much of the items so labeled by YOU in conversations with friends that are Buddhist, Taoist, Hindi, Jew and Muslim among other non-Christian faiths.
If you have no interest in faith, that is your coil, not mine.
So lighten up, a great deal, on the accusations boyo!

And E&C, what modern translation of the Bible are you using?
I have content problems with most since they are not going by long standing valid Hebrew or Greek texts and translation guides/references; they claim to be more accurate when indeed they are among the most inaccurate and definitely skewed texts I have encountered.
And this modern language business is a joke in most cases since modern Greek or Hebrew, let alone the modern English they are playing in, is most certainly not what those languages were even an hundred years ago, let alone getting close to the times that the writing was taking place in.
In other words, just your quotes from Exodus, Chapter 21 (let alone any of the others) do not jib with any of the Bibles I referenced them in, with the youngest and possibly the most flawed being the KJV.
Additional evidence of your skewed platform E&C.

You know E&C, with how you started, I had such high hopes for you to have the proofs that I had not been able to find, but you proved to be just as much of a charlatan and con man as you say Jospeh Smith, Jr. to be.

After much thought E&C, I have come to a final conclusion about you and this "chip" of yours.
You are just another one of those Jack-Mormons, turned Anti- with an axe to grind.
From all the fuss & bustle you give here and the complete absence PROOF for any of your contentions, you have to be that or one of those hate-blinded Born Agains.
You sound perfectly so.

You give me nothing, when politely asked, that I can go and prove that Joseph Smith, Jr. is a fraud.
You repeat over and over myths that either I found to be complete falsehoods or found no proof to validate while at university decades ago on the subject.
And moreover, these are never from persons who actually have an education or experience to back up their accusations.
When is someone with the needed credentials going to come forward with valid proof?
At this rate, never.

E&C, I grow tired of your groundless accusations and your aversions to giving me anything I can work with to prove that Joseph Smith, Jr. was nothing but a fraud and a charlatan.
Therefore, I am done with you here unless you will part with solid, valid proof that I can use to prosecute the case.

poda_t, thank you for your reply.
I believe I understand your position.
Your feet are set; I respect that.
I disagree with your conclusions based on the facts before us all, but I respect your right to them.
Thank you for taking the time to tell your viewpoint to us all.
Have a Happy Holidays! (within your worldview)

 DouglasJB wrote:

poda_t, thank you for your reply.
I believe I understand your position.
Your feet are set; I respect that.
I disagree with your conclusions based on the facts before us all, but I respect your right to them.
Thank you for taking the time to tell your viewpoint to us all.
Have a Happy Holidays! (within your worldview)

I'm glad you were able to take my remarks the way you did. I do realize that the manner in which I put my thoughts to paper can, *ahem* be offensive, if not insulting.

 DouglasJB wrote:
SilverMK2, copies are no good because indeed they are copies - allegedly.
In this day of skilled computer fraud and back in the '70s and '80s with skilled surface and ink fraud, copies are not valid proof of anything.

You set the bar too high - I think the only thing that would really satisfy your criteria would be a TARDIS?

Have none of you taken any history classes at the tertiary level?

I hold an A grade History A-Level.

Why do I have to prove God is real, imaginary or otherwise for you SilverMK2?

Because you're making incredibly extraordinary claims and providing zero evidence other than a book written 100 years after Jesus died (The Bible) by people who never met Jesus, and a book written 1800 years after Jesus died (The Book of Mormon) by a man whose reliability is dubious at best.

Holy writ is full of persons God Himself proved His existence to and Christ, His divinity to, and they still denied God was real and Christ was divine.

You can't use the Bible as proof of divinity of Jesus, unless the Bible demonstrates extraordinary properties (it doesn't).
One might as well use The Lord of the Rings as proof of the divinity of Sauron.

E&C, E&C, (head shaking) you are certainly quick with the accusation, but glacially slow, if that even, when it comes to giving me proofs that can stand the scales of justice, let alone the meager judgement of man.
E&C, you sir, are a lost cause so therefore I am too - so far.
You only point me to people, who have been proven wrong by NON-MORMONs, and to alleged factual documents you link to that are not PRIMARY sources, but alleged copies of them, also mostly disproved by non-Mormon experts in their fields.

Actually I just pointed you to the #1 result on Google for "Joseph Smith Glass Looker".

Here's the #1 result on Google for "Joseph Smith Conman" : http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.

So anyway, doesn't the mere fact that Native Americans have been proven through genetic analysis to have no recent (sub 3000 years) common ancestors with Jews prove that Joseph Smith Jnr. claimed things that are obvious lies?

And then you try to accuse me of trying to convert you to Mormonism!

Did I?

Why in the world would I try to do that?

To save me from hellfire, duh.

I'm assuming you're a normal human being with normal empathy, of course, and that you find the idea of someone roasting alive in fire for all eternity a horrible thing, and would seek to prevent it from happening to as many people as possible.

I am looking for proof that will stand in the courtroom, let alone any other valid debate, that Joseph Smith, Jr. was a fraud and a charlatan.

Genetic analysis of Native Americans and Jews prove they do not share a genetic lineage.
Therefore Joseph Smith was lying when he said Native Americans were once white-skinned Jews, who left Saudi Arabia and journeyed to America (where they hung out with Jesus).

I had and have no interest in you becoming a Mormon now or in the future.

Stop telling me I'm going to burn in hell for all eternity when I die, then.

And E&C, have you listened to any Christian church out there really.
Or any service group, faith collection or any person
"So says the Mormon Church" is getting tiresome when I hear so much of what you say that to at the Presbyterian church, have heard it in the Methodist church and have heard it at the Catholic church.

So?
I wouldn't say the Mormon Church has exclusivity on silliness.

And E&C, what modern translation of the Bible are you using?

Translations that don't dishonestly try to replace the word "slave" with "servant".

I have content problems with most since they are not going by long standing valid Hebrew or Greek texts and translation guides/references; they claim to be more accurate when indeed they are among the most inaccurate and definitely skewed texts I have encountered.
And this modern language business is a joke in most cases since modern Greek or Hebrew, let alone the modern English they are playing in, is most certainly not what those languages were even an hundred years ago, let alone getting close to the times that the writing was taking place in.
In other words, just your quotes from Exodus, Chapter 21 (let alone any of the others) do not jib with any of the Bibles I referenced them in, with the youngest and possibly the most flawed being the KJV.
Additional evidence of your skewed platform E&C.

Are you seriously trying to claim that the following doesn't equate to slavery?

- Humans can be bought and sold as property
- Your human property that you own, passes into the ownership of your children (permanently) if you die
- Jewish men that are your property get a choice on whether to go free, or remain your property, after you have owned them for six years
- You may sell your own daughter to someone else to use as property, and unlike a Jewish man, she will not become free after six years
- You may beat your human property, just as long as they don't die within two days of the beating
- Human property must obey their masters, especially if they are Christian

Etc.

There is no wiggle room in translation here, that list of statements from the Bible describes slavery.

After much thought E&C, I have come to a final conclusion about you and this "chip" of yours.
You are just another one of those Jack-Mormons, turned Anti- with an axe to grind.

I'm an ex-Jew.

 DouglasJB wrote:
SilverMK2, copies are no good because indeed they are copies - allegedly.
In this day of skilled computer fraud and back in the '70s and '80s with skilled surface and ink fraud, copies are not valid proof of anything.

And yet this does not apply to the authenticity of anything written down a couple of thousand years ago about various actvities of the divine? Hell, you could (and people evidently did) write whatever the hell they wanted with no one questioning their facts, nor did even those attempting serious research in the ancient world work in the same way historians or researchers do today, having to rely on much second, third, fourth etc hand accounts, working with myths and legends rather than first hand experience.

Have none of you taken any history classes at the tertiary level?

Not really however I have done a lot of scientific work and courses where one learns to question that which one reads in the same way.

There have been some huge frauds done as far as historical documents, and anyone with a quality historical education knows that.
Copies are not legitimate sources unless one can validate the credentials of those whose hands have "carried" the copy and even then, they are suspect in most historical fora and nearly every legal fora.
This is the environment I worked for years and find no valid reason to not apply it here to this subject, who was a candidate for the Presidency in the Election of 1844.
That was the environment I first ran into him.

My brother in law is an ancient historian and I regulalry attend the pub with a number of his friends who are lecturers, PhD students and post-docs in ancient history at Oxford University - they work with historical information all the time, including photocopies/scans of original work. There are ways to authenticate copies of works in the same way that you can authenticate scientific data, observations of the stars or anything else.

Why do I have to prove God is real, imaginary or otherwise for you SilverMK2?

You are the one making a claim for the existance of god, therefore you have to prove your claims. As has been said quite a number of times now.

Holy writ is full of persons God Himself proved His existence to and Christ, His divinity to, and they still denied God was real and Christ was divine.
With E&C, I am simply asking for valid historical proofs of legal events that happened in four American states less than two hundred years ago, and he is just not bothering to toe the mark.

I've yet to hear of much of anything from most religious texts be authenticated as historically accurate. When you can apply your own standards to the stuff you are taking information from and find it good, then I would be happy to take a look at anything you are left with.

Some, including the Salamander Letter, were analysed with a mass spectrometer (one of the first the FBI owned) and the joining was found to be modern; they looked completely real otherwise.
What a hoax!

I can't comment on that particular letter or any others that followed it as I do not know the case. However, as you so eagerly point out to show how difficult it was to find out this hoax - they used newly invented technology that was, at the time, quite rare in order to demonstrate that the letters were fake. Now pretty much any lab in the world would be able to do the same tests as those done by the FBI (going by your account). I am sure that I have heard of many historical artifacts being tested in this way to determine their age, makeup, etc...

And SilverMK2, there are folks like E&C still believe that Hoffman's papers are real; they say it was a Mormon Conspiracy that faked the lab results for all; one problem - not a single Mormon was employed anywhere at the lab in New York that proved the papers to be a hoax, let alone in the labs in Philadelphia or Dallas that followed up on the results; granted, there were and are Mormons at the FBI labs in Washington D.C. and Quantico.
But still, folks like E&C will claim it is all a Mormon Conspiracy.

I have not heard EC (as far as I recall) making these claims. Again, I do not know the case to which you refer to so can't really comment on it. You are constructing an elaborate smear against those who disagree with you.

I have not heard EC (as far as I recall) making these claims

Nope, I've no idea what the Hoffman papers are.
According to Wiki they're some sort of forgery from the 1980's involving Mormonism, so DouglasJB is building a textbook perfect "strawman" there, describing a modified version of my position that includes weaknesses, then knocking over that false strawman with ease.
.
.

 DouglasJB wrote:
SilverMK2, copies are no good because indeed they are copies - allegedly.
In this day of skilled computer fraud and back in the '70s and '80s with skilled surface and ink fraud, copies are not valid proof of anything.
[…]
Why do I have to prove God is real, imaginary or otherwise for you SilverMK2?
Holy writ is full of persons God Himself proved His existence to and Christ, His divinity to, and they still denied God was real and Christ was divine.

So, we can not trust copies because they can be counterfeit, but not only do we have to believe persons claiming that god revealed his existence to them without questioning their motives and/or mental health, but even more so, we have to believe on a copy of a book pretend to give a fair account of their testimony ?
That is mental.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 DouglasJB wrote:
SilverMK2, copies are no good because indeed they are copies - allegedly.
In this day of skilled computer fraud and back in the '70s and '80s with skilled surface and ink fraud, copies are not valid proof of anything.
[…]
Why do I have to prove God is real, imaginary or otherwise for you SilverMK2?
Holy writ is full of persons God Himself proved His existence to and Christ, His divinity to, and they still denied God was real and Christ was divine.

So, we can not trust copies because they can be counterfeit, but not only do we have to believe persons claiming that god revealed his existence to them without questioning their motives and/or mental health, but even more so, we have to believe on a copy of a book pretend to give a fair account of their testimony ?
That is mental.

Yes. But then you have to realize there are essentially another layer on top of this where whole groups of other people who argue about which translations are correct, which editions are true, and what about whose interpretation is correct. It's amazing what our fear is capable of doing to us.

I am just replying as I get to an idea; separating them out as to who and when exactly is getting to be a bother, though with some issues, I will take the time.

Copies are valid if the chain of possession can be verified without gap and without question as to the credentia of the possessors of the copy along the path.
Therefore a photograph of something that must be kept in a strictly controlled environment is valid as long as it can be proven to be a real copy of the original artifact and that said copy has not traveled through suspect possessors.
This is the same test whether in the scientific community or in the legal world.

As to things thousands of years old, it is the case of duplication of artifact that gives verification like it does elsewhere.
Things like the Nag Hammadi codices and the papyri, parchments and the bronze from Qurum give a sense of validity to all those who believe in the Bible as sacred writ to name only two famous finds among several artifact finds concerning holy writ since the Second World War.
On the other hand, for the radical Humanists among us, it simply gives proof that the "con" has been going on longer than just a few hundred years.

I set the bar too high?!?
For legal proof that I can use that Joseph Smith, Jr., was a fraud and a charlatan?
Now, you are the one creating strawmen E&C!!!
I want proof that I am not going to get "egg on my face" with when some person with more resources than my own undoubtedly takes me to task over my accusations.
E&C evidently feels comfortable on his side of the Pond to repeat any internet b*%%#$*t he can find as valid proof of the criminality of the man.
As a virtuous man, I cannot use such and expect to maintain my integrity.

E&C, you hold an "A" grade and support such shoddy work and ideas E&C in what you refer me to?
There is an impolite question that begs asking here about your "A" grade, but it may not be according to posting rules here at Dakka Dakka.

With this claim of E&C, I see evidently that there is a British version of getting a degree/grade/certification/whatever and not getting the education that goes along with it like is so common on our side of the Pond.
That seems to be your case, E&C, since it seems that you cannot understand primary sources and clean chains of possession let alone valid peer reviews of secondary sources (man, you gave me a Wiki link of all the possible historiographical stupidities).
And I am not going to mess with any Mormon claims or doctrines concerning AmerInds!
Talk about someone trying to obfuscate the specific issue with strawmen!!
Keep on task E&C.

E&C, you are histerical and hysterical.
When did I say you were going to burn?
I would not E&C.
You know why?
The word "like".
Take another look at holy writ; see that word "like" around descriptions of Hell/Hel?
Looks like a simile to me, oh braggart of how much you claim to know!
From what I have gleaned from holy writ, Hell/Hel appears to be a state of mind that goes on through the eternities along with the fact that you are damned and going no where fast forever.
Did you not pay attention at the beginning when I said I was not a traditional Christian?!?
And who knows, furthermore from what is said in various places in holy writ, he "Hell/Hel-bound" soul might just be a slave to those who make it to "heaven"; not sold into eternal slavery by anyone but yourself!
What an hilarious irony!!

Moreover E&C, Hell/Hel is, I believe, a perfectly good state of mind for the many persons who could not get over themselves and then took their thoughts out on those around them.
People that make the lives of all around them a very great burden or, pardon the pun, a living hell seem to be just crying out to be bound in Hell/Hel.
Hell/Hel is a very good condition for those who do so.

Plainly folks, you will earn what eternal reward you will get if you bother to actually read the holy writ available out there.
Holy writ, if you include all that can be validated to the Faithful, clearly shows your actions along with what comes forth from you thoughts will be what earns you what you get.
The Judge will step in where He sees merit to make up for your human shortcomings that will never get you all the way to a heaven-earned state, but I cannot see any merit in saying He does not exist or in harming those around you in His name.

So, for those who still think I am trying to convert any one here, no I am not trying to lead you to any sort of "water", unlike some here who are trying to get you to drink lots and lots of Kool-Aid.
I see, through my education and personal experiences, some simple absolutes that not only may earn one an eternal reward that one can desire, but also make one a useful contributing human being while living in this existence.
I can rail against Humanism and its offshoots with as much and as many items as any of you can provide against organized religions.
The creature called "human" is generally the least humane organism on the planet unless it looks for a higher standard of behavior than just doing what feels good or doing what it wants to do right this instant, which much of Humanism proselytes.

So E&C, you are an ex-Jew?
What do YOU mean by this?
Are you claiming you are Hebrew, but no longer practice Judaism?
Or what?
I can go on for three more definitions that fit "ex-Jew", but that would be a waste for me.
"Ex-Jew" is meaningless without an explanation!

And E&C, if you are an "ex-Jew" along with being from Britain according to your sidebar (I cannot believe I was not cognizant of that before), where is your cred as to making statements about an American religious leader/political candidate of claimed Christianity?
I seem to be completely wasting my time trying to get valid & legal proof of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s criminal activities from someone like you.
Really, I appear to have totally wasted my time here attempting to deal with you.

SilverMk2, you will make your claim as to whether there is a deity or not out there.
That is your coil.
I am not trying to prove the divinity of any person or make you make a choice like my own.
What I would like YOU and all of the other Humanists here to do is to stop criticizing those who do believe in some deity.
You and your ilk SilverMK2 have made your decision; you impose upon my rights at the point you deride my choice or try to forcibly change mine through whatever means you see as valid.
Or are you and E&C from a land that does not have real protections for people to practice their religious beliefs?
I wonder these days after reading the media on both sides of the Pond these days.
There is no law or even valid legal fiction that gives anyone the right to persecute religion or that guarantees any citizen some sort of freedom from religion.
There is only the legal fiction of the separation of church & state and the American right that the government cannot legislate religions and cannot prohibit the free exercise of it when it does not impinge upon the other rights and freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

If I have not addressed your complete replies, my pardon.
I am seeing these replies getting more argumentative and further departing from my original statements and replies so I finding less and less utility in responding.
As far as E&C, he is not providing what I asked for, so I am done here with his railings.
SilverMK2, if you feel the need to pursue me further on this, take it to PMs.

Poda_t, thank for taking up my "olive branch".
Please have the happiest of Holiday seasons.

 DouglasJB wrote:

Please have the happiest of Holiday seasons.

ERMAGHURRRD!!!!
AM SO 'FFENDED! GURRR! I am are be atheiest! Holiday implies sanctity, I see no sanctity, URRMAGHUUUURRRRRRRD!!! 'FFENDED! SO 'FFENDED! [/moron behaviour]

^---- this is why I'm probably not going to look forward to the coming period of drunken eggnog consumption. People detonationg over stupid non-politically correct crap instead of just taking joy in the fact that they get a couple days off work while, theoretically, everything everywhere is quiet.

Atheist. To elaborate shortly:

I never got along with Religion or religious people. The very first time I stood in the church as a little boy it felt like a giant cage you just willingly lock yourself into. You had to be quiet, sometimes they expect you to give them money. They forbid a whole bunch of stuff that should be completely normal. Often they hate on other people who do not follow these standards.

Im 20 now, until around 17 or 18 i actively opposed religion. I belittled and laughed at them. Was just a general prick the moment someone said he "beliefs in X". Luckily, I grew out of that, met some religious people who I can get along with, as long as they do not try to impose their standards on others. Also I realised that im not really being the better person if I oppose the screaming looney with being a screaming looney myself. I sometimes still argue with people like that, but the topic is just one giant troll-bait waiting to be swallowed. And in my experience, arguing with people that use "Because my imaginary friend jesus says so" as an actual argument, does not end well.

Today, im pretty indifferent towards religion. I usually avoid discussions around the subject, since people have a habit of circling around non-arguments. "A says you cant prove there is a god, while B says you cant disprove there is a god." Just seems like a huge waste of time, especially considering all I could say towards the topic would come over as very hostile towards religious people. The only time I still get up in arms is when religious people try to take peoples rights away, or just generally act like idiots. (Looking at topics like abortion, same-sex marriage etc.) Sadly, often those people seem to be the majority representing their faith.

 DouglasJB wrote:
SilverMk2, you will make your claim as to whether there is a deity or not out there.
That is your coil.

I'm not making a claim about there being a god, you are. As has been said soooo many times - the default assumption on any issue is that there is nothing. You are the one claiming that thre is something.

What I would like YOU and all of the other Humanists here to do is to stop criticizing those who do believe in some deity.

Firstly I don't recall criticising anyone. Secondly, I do not claim to be a humanist. I do not belong to any group, religious or otherwise. I'm quite happy living my own life without subscribing to the beliefs of another group and am perfectly able to make my own decisions about the universe without having to borrow those of someone else.

You and your ilk SilverMK2 have made your decision; you impose upon my rights at the point you deride my choice or try to forcibly change mine through whatever means you see as valid.

I'm not trying to change your point of view (other than through questioning why you believe as you do, thereby getting you to examine why you believe what you do I suppose...). Nor do I recall deriding your choices. You can go out and dance around a fire naked, throwing chicken blood into sacred patterns on the ground and chanting David Bowie lyrics for all I care - takes all sorts to make a world and as long as you are not hurting anyone, knock yourself out

Or are you and E&C from a land that does not have real protections for people to practice their religious beliefs?
I wonder these days after reading the media on both sides of the Pond these days.

We have pretty good protections for and from religion here. For example, you can't mutilate the genitals of girls because your gods tell you to. A good protection from religion there

Though if you want to point to any inequalities it would be easier to talk about them rather than a vague cry of "dey took our bibls!".

There is no law or even valid legal fiction that gives anyone the right to persecute religion or that guarantees any citizen some sort of freedom from religion.
There is only the legal fiction of the separation of church & state and the American right that the government cannot legislate religions and cannot prohibit the free exercise of it when it does not impinge upon the other rights and freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

There is nothing in law which says you should have some kind of magical protection just because you have an invisible friend either.

SilverMK2, if you feel the need to pursue me further on this, take it to PMs.

I don't believe I am "pursuing" you. I'm just replying to your posts. You make it sound as if I am hunting you through the forms, sending you PM's constantly, have somehow got hold of your email and am spaming you or something

Shinto isn't here, so I put Buddhism.

 DouglasJB wrote:
As to things thousands of years old, it is the case of duplication of artifact that gives verification like it does elsewhere.
Things like the Nag Hammadi codices and the papyri, parchments and the bronze from Qurum give a sense of validity to all those who believe in the Bible as sacred writ to name only two famous finds among several artifact finds concerning holy writ since the Second World War.
On the other hand, for the radical Humanists among us, it simply gives proof that the "con" has been going on longer than just a few hundred years.

Just because a book survived to the present day, does not prove anything as to its claimed divinity.
The epic of Gilgamesh is far older than the Bible, and claims its protagonist as a God. Is it thus divine?

We do know that the four main books of the New Testament weren't even written down until a long time after Jesus had died, most likely by people who never even met Jesus.

I set the bar too high?!?

You do. I gave you a link to a group who hold primary sources, and you dismiss them as fraudulent, based on .... the teachings that your church gives you that that group is fraudulent?

I want proof that I am not going to get "egg on my face" with when some person with more resources than my own undoubtedly takes me to task over my accusations.

I don't think that's what you want.
What you want, I suspect, is to be able to believe that Joseph Smith Jnr. dictated the eternal truth whilst face down in a hat, and nothing short of a TARDIS might dissuade you.

Here's a point: Even if Smith is proven to you that he was a fraudster earlier in life, what would that prove to you?
Such a proof does not negate the idea that Smith actually did have a direct line to the divine, for such a claim is unfalsifiable.
You would still be able to cling to your religion, and to the believer, Smith's earlier transgressions become an arc of redemption for a lowly sinner.

E&C evidently feels comfortable on his side of the Pond to repeat any internet b*%%#$*t he can find as valid proof of the criminality of the man.

I'm comfortable saying that a man who dictates a religion out of a hat is 99.999% likely to be a fraudster.
Especially if his "translations" of Egpytian scripts make zero sense when compared to translations derived from the Rosetta Stone.

That there are records available online (and available for personal inspection on request, I'm sure) that indicate he was also convicted of fraud in his younger days, is mere reinforcement, it is not the nub.

E&C, you hold an "A" grade and support such shoddy work and ideas E&C in what you refer me to?
There is an impolite question that begs asking here about your "A" grade, but it may not be according to posting rules here at Dakka Dakka.

No, I didn't cheat.

With this claim of E&C, I see evidently that there is a British version of getting a degree/grade/certification/whatever and not getting the education that goes along with it like is so common on our side of the Pond.

Here we have a claim of parochial superiority from you DouglasJB, without you even bothering to look up what an A-Level is.
I'll let that speak for itself.

And I am not going to mess with any Mormon claims or doctrines concerning AmerInds!

Why not?
Because in a case of contrast between your Mormon texts, and real life facts, you are forced to conclude that the real life facts are wrong?

Talk about someone trying to obfuscate the specific issue with strawmen!!
Keep on task E&C.

It is a genetically proven fact that American Natives are not related to or descended from the Jews.
Indisputable fact.

To brush that fact aside as if it weren't on topic, shows an inability to deal with the claims of your religion in a rational manner.

E&C, you are histerical and hysterical.
When did I say you were going to burn?

When you said this, amongst other things:
As to your personal beliefs as to deity or not, well, that point of view is what you have stewed up for you and you will held responsible for it.
Why you want to "season" the stew the way you have, is only obvious to you.

Seems pointless to deny that you've implied I'm going to be sent to Mormon hell in the Mormon afterlife.

From what I have gleaned from holy writ, Hell/Hel appears to be a state of mind that goes on through the eternities along with the fact that you are damned and going no where fast forever.

Hell is different between different sects. Most Christian and Islamic sects say it's a burning pit of fire, some say it's "just" an eternal separation from God that "burns" as badly as being burned in fire.
It's all unsubstantiated stories to me.

Did you not pay attention at the beginning when I said I was not a traditional Christian?!?

You seem traditional enough.

Moreover E&C, Hell/Hel is, I believe, a perfectly good state of mind for the many persons who could not get over themselves and then took their thoughts out on those around them.
People that make the lives of all around them a very great burden or, pardon the pun, a living hell seem to be just crying out to be bound in Hell/Hel.
Hell/Hel is a very good condition for those who do so.

Oh yes, humans are "born sick, and commanded to be well".
You must Love the God who you also must Fear.
You're saying nothing non-traditional so far, I must say.

Plainly folks, you will earn what eternal reward you will get if you bother to actually read the holy writ available out there.

I've already noted the various "holy" books I've read so far.

Why is your favourite magic book the real one?
What makes Mormonism true, and all the rest false?

Merely the fact that you were born into a Mormon family?

I cannot see any merit in saying He does not exist

I can't see any merit in claiming something does exist, when all you have as evidence is some books which contain stories of people with magic powers.
Show me some actual magic powers, and I'll convert to your flavour of Mormonism.
But you can't.
All you have is some stories.

I see, through my education and personal experiences, some simple absolutes that not only may earn one an eternal reward that one can desire, but also make one a useful contributing human being while living in this existence.

You have some personal experiences that prove Mormonism is true?
What are those?

I can rail against Humanism and its offshoots with as much and as many items as any of you can provide against organized religions.

Please do.

The creature called "human" is generally the least humane organism on the planet unless it looks for a higher standard of behavior than just doing what feels good or doing what it wants to do right this instant, which much of Humanism proselytes.

Nope, that's not what Humanism promotes; That's what psychopathy promotes.

So E&C, you are an ex-Jew?
What do YOU mean by this?
Are you claiming you are Hebrew, but no longer practice Judaism?
Or what?

I was born into a family that practiced the rites and propitiations of Judaism.
When I was young, I believed in the God Yahweh, learned the ancient prayers, and worshipped as Jews have done for millenia.
When I grew up, I came to a point where I saw no point in being Jewish, if there was no credible evidence that Judaism was true, other than an old book of stories.
I read a few other ancient story books since, as theology is a hobby of mine now. I've yet to see any credible evidence for the existence of the divine.

And E&C, if you are an "ex-Jew" along with being from Britain according to your sidebar (I cannot believe I was not cognizant of that before), where is your cred as to making statements about an American religious leader/political candidate of claimed Christianity?

This reminds me about an interview I saw on Fox News a couple of months ago with the Islamic scholar Reza Aslan, who had just released a book he'd written about the life of Jesus.
The Fox News host asked him by what right he could write a book about Jesus, if he didn't believe in Jesus' divinity.
His answer was, essentially, "that's a really stupid objection".

I am not trying to prove the divinity of any person or make you make a choice like my own.

Then why are you publicly claiming that there's a God?
(and that he lives next to the planet Kolob with his Wives, if you adhere to Mormonism)

If you are going to make a claim (and you are making a claim), then please present your evidence.

I don't want to go to Mormon hell if it's real, present your evidence and save me from Mormon hell!!!

What I would like YOU and all of the other Humanists here to do is to stop criticizing those who do believe in some deity.

We're not criticizing people. We're criticizing ideas.

Besides, I tend to label myself as an existentialist who believes in situational ethics.
Perhaps that makes me a "Humanist" by your measure.

Or are you and E&C from a land that does not have real protections for people to practice their religious beliefs?

The official state religion of the UK is Christianity.
The head of state is also the head of the Church.
State taxes go towards supporting Christian institutions.

There is no law or even valid legal fiction that gives anyone the right to persecute religion or that guarantees any citizen some sort of freedom from religion.

Are you claiming that you are being persecuted?
By some words on a page of an internet messageboard?

If I have not addressed your complete replies, my pardon.

You can beg my pardon better by presenting evidence for your claims.

As far as E&C, he is not providing what I asked for, so I am done here with his railings.

I have provided you with what you asked for. You weren't interested enough to take the further step of contacting the people I linked you to.
You merely stated "I don't trust those people" without providing any evidence as to why the links I gave you shouldn't be trusted.
You just asked me to take it on faith that the number #1 Google Hit for "Joseph Smith Glass Looker" was a fraudulent page.
If you have evidence that the claim of these people to hold court documents pertaining to Joseph Smith Jnr. is fraudulent, please present it.