Elder

denkrahm    says:

nice picture!!
Posted 52 months ago. ( permalink )

Julep67    says:

it sure doesn't work around here either!! nice shot though!
Posted 52 months ago. ( permalink )

Huro Kitty    says:

he should learn to knot his tie properly
Posted 52 months ago. ( permalink )

astrangegirl says:

I never understood how someone who is probably 20 years old is called an "elder."
Posted 52 months ago. ( permalink )

Wiedmaier    says:

Does his tie even reach his belly button?
Posted 52 months ago. ( permalink )

troycochrane says:

They were all over Taiwan. I want to dress up as a Mormon "missionary" for halloween, blue pants, white, short-sleeved shirt, tie and bike helmet... good to go.
Posted 52 months ago. ( permalink )

al greer    says:

no tea?! that's jolly uncouth don't you know!
Posted 52 months ago. ( permalink )

florriebassingbourn    says:

Having been welcomed to Thanksgiving dinner 1977 by a Mormon family in Salt Lake City, I'm here to tell you that an occasion like that may be caffeine-free, but our host was quite happy to accept an illicit cup of coffee elsewhere .

I put my year in Utah to good use when evangelised on my doorstep. I just tell them all about how I was in Salt Lake before they were even born and they go off all misty-eyed with homesickness and forget what they called about :-)
Posted 52 months ago. ( permalink )

Jamie Stucki says:

That Elder looks like a respectable young man. You would be surprised about the success in the UK.
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

hoveringdog    says:

The Scientologists in the UK still have you beat by about 120,000 members.

Slackers. :)
Posted 47 months ago. ( permalink )

derPlau says:

This photo has been included on iPods sent to US Senators as part of the iPac "Your Senator needs an iPod" program.

(Apparently they send iPods to Senators to educate them about intellectual property issues in the digital age; they've included 101 Creative Commons-licensed Flickr images on the iPods. I've got nothing to do with them, except that one of my images was included as well.)
Posted 41 months ago. ( permalink )

wigglypig says:

great picture, i'd like to see you all give up 2 years of your life and dedicate yourself to single cause relying on the principal of faith.
Posted 39 months ago. ( permalink )

hoveringdog    says:

How exactly is giving up two years of one's life "on the principal of faith" a virtue? Replace faith with "wild hunch" and I think you'll see where I'm coming from. Sure, I'm impressed with their dedication, but it's more the two-headed-baby kind of "wow" than it is a genuine sense of accolade.
Posted 39 months ago. ( permalink )

hoveringdog    says:

Fair enough to make that distinction, but I'm just saying that I don't see how dedicating yourself to a cause is in itself inherently virtuous. I can list all manner of misguided or malicious 'causes' to which people have given their allegiance. The virtue lies in the content of the cause, not merely in the act of dedication.
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

brentdanley    says:

They don't have to give up their girlfriends. Mine "waited" for me while I was serving in Massachusetts. We're still together. I've since left the church. It's crap ;)

Even though I don't believe any of the dogma I was teaching on my mission I did learn a lot. It was a very positive experience. Missionaries have to learn how to be with guys they don't pick 24/7, live off pennies a day, and face tremendous amounts of rejection. No t.v., radio, movies, books, magazines, newspaper and they work 16 hours/day 7 days/week for two years. That's pretty impressive for 19/20 year old guys.

Nice tie, BTW! LOL
Posted 38 months ago. ( permalink )

senior ding-dong says:

Next time you see a missionary on the street, talk to him- I DARE YA!!!
Posted 37 months ago. ( permalink )

just_kelly    says:

[addressing the damned]
Hell Director: Hello, newcomers and welcome. Can everybody hear me? Hello?
[taps microphone]
Hell Director: Can everybody... ok. Um, I am the Hell Director. Uh, it looks like we have 8,615 of you newbies today. And for those of you who were little confused: uh, you are dead; and this is Hell. So abbandon all hope and yadda-yadda-yadda. Uh, we are now going to start the orientation PROcess which will last about...
Protestant: Hey, wait a minute. I shouldn't be here, I was a totally strick and devout Protestant. I thought we went to heaven.
Hell Director: Yes, well, I'm afraid you are wrong.
Soldier: I was a practicing Jehovah's Witness.
Hell Director: Uh, you picked the wrong religion as well.
Man from Crowd: Well who was right? Who gets in to Heaven?
Hell Director: I'm afraid it was the MORmons. Yes, the MORmons were the correct answer.
The Damned: Awwww...
Posted 36 months ago. ( permalink )

clintspicx    says:

I don't know about all of you and why you bash on peoples faith, but if you understand photography, you wouldn't think that this guy in this picture is going to hell. If you do, your being judgemental. I see this picture as a nice and warm feeling. He is just a young man who is very seriouse when it comes to what he shares, yet he is only human by the way he wears his tie, its humorus and its heartfelt. If he believes in what he is teaching and people feel his compashion toward them then I think its their dession to decide weither or not its right for them. This picture is worth a 1000 words and I hate to see that most of them are reflecting negative/judgemental thoughts on a perosons faith. I bet you that the man in this picture would give his life for anyone of you here, that is what I see in this photo and thats what makes it a good shot. Not just because he is mormon.
Posted 32 months ago. ( permalink )

hoveringdog    says:

I'm not sure whether this was addressed at all toward me, but I personally don't think this guy is going to hell.

I also don't believe he's going to Heaven, Elysium, Tir Na Nog, Valhalla, The Big Rock Candy Mountain, or any other of the magical mythical places humans have invented.

I do believe he is sincere, and I don't think he ought to be judged or condemned for his beliefs or practices. I think instead he ought to be shown the same compassion we ought to show toward all who suffer from delusional disorders...
Posted 32 months ago. ( permalink )

makelessnoise    says:

Hovering - Interesting asserions. Can you be sure that you aren't among those afflicted? You sound pretty sure your objective truth is the only right one. Isn't the conviction of an 'absolute truth' something you object to in the religous? Atheism is an assertion of belief, after all.

I do agree that dedication alone isn't neccessarily virtuous, though. Karl Rove was certainly dedicated...
Posted 32 months ago. ( permalink )

hoveringdog    says:

Can you be sure that you aren't among those afflicted?

This is a distinction we commonly make in every other aspect of our lives apart from religion: Assenting to claims without regard to proof or evidence is an entirely different matter from withholding assent without sufficient evidence.

A man who claims, without evidence, that Bush is possessed by an alien from the Alpha Centauri system would be considered delusional. The rest of us, who would disregard his claim without substantial evidence in its favor, would not be.

Is it possible that the man's claim is true and the rest of us are wrong? Sure, strange things happen. But his rightness would not be a matter of having arrived at a conclusion through a process of reason, but as a result of mere dumb luck. And reasonable people don't place faith in improbable guesses about the nature of reality, but on the basis of what is probable based on evidence. Imagine if our courts were operated by the same process of thought by which we arrive at religious claims...

Isn't the conviction of an 'absolute truth' something you object to in the religous?

No. I don't object to claims about objective reality. I object to claims made about objective reality without proof, evidence, or even so much as a coherent internal logic.

Atheism is an assertion of belief, after all.

We're all atheists in regard to most of the gods in which humanity has ever believed. Most of us are a-Odin-ists, a-Zeus-ists, a-Baal-ists. Hell, most of us are a-unicorn-ists, a-faerie-ists, a-dragon-ists. So why is it that when the atheist goes one myth further and denies the existence of Yahweh that everyone gets their panties in a tangle?
Posted 32 months ago. ( permalink )

makelessnoise    says:

Hovering - Thank you for keeping such a civil tone. People usually get so worked up that it becomes impossible to have a real discussion.

The question of Bush's humanity would be another discussion entirely, and probably not as civil. ;)

As to the 'reality without proof' assertion, a believer would tell you - and sincerely - that his/her life is happier, more fulfilling and more beautiful due to the belief system, and as such is sufficient proof for them. I don't think that's irrational or illogical, though his/her experience would obviously be insufficient as proof for you or me. I'm suggesting that delusion isn't a requirement for acceptance of a supernatural being. A personal experience can be compelling, but will always lose something in the translation.

And the we-are-all-atheists assertion, your point is well taken. An important distinction is that all theists believe in some god, not the same god, necessarily. An atheist says there is none. And of course, if you choose to minimize my own god, I'm gonna take it personally. That's why panties get tangled. People are always comfortable if you don't believe in a god they don't believe in, either.
Posted 32 months ago. ( permalink )

brentdanley    says:

I've enjoyed the latest banter. Thanks.

>a believer would tell you - and sincerely - that his/her life is happier, more fulfilling and more beautiful due to the belief system

You're correct, they would. It's not the belief system though, it's the belief in the belief system that provides the benefit. They may find fulfillment in the social aspects of their church and happiness being part of something bigger than themselves. This fulfillment and happiness could also be found in any other church, secular organization, or hallucinogenic drug. It's not good enough to point to the "good" their belief system provides without first subtracting the "bad". What is the cost of all this good?

--
Seen in my recent comments. (?)
Posted 32 months ago. ( permalink )

hoveringdog    says:

As to the 'reality without proof' assertion, a believer would tell you - and sincerely - that his/her life is happier, more fulfilling and more beautiful due to the belief system, and as such is sufficient proof for them.

Well, I don't think most believers organize their beliefs around what they personally find most fulfilling, and even those who do would acknowledge, whether openly or tacitly, the inadequacy of such a criterion for determining the truth value of a claim.

The thing is, religion doesn't make claims merely regarding internal phenomena, but regarding cosmology, science, and history. Even the most devout theist would affirm that a standard of evidence based merely on what one finds most fulfilling would lead to countless errors, if applied to those subjects upon which his religion does not touch.

No theist would, for example, make improbable claims about the life of Napoleon or the atomic structure of oxygen based merely on what beliefs he found most personally fulfilling. And yet his religion may well make claims about Near Eastern history, the origins of homo sapiens, or the age of the earth, which are often taken on faith in the absence of compelling evidence (though they may assert questionable and arguably specious examples of corroborating evidence that are not in themselves persuasive).

Moreover, if happiness and fulfillment were sufficient to verify the truth of something, then the truest worldview would be that which provided the maximum amount of happiness and fulfillment. And yet, many theists acknowledge some claims that they themselves find uncomfortable. Most Evangelicals, for example (and I can say this as a former Evangelical myself), don't revel in the fact that most of their friends and family are headed toward an eternity of gruesome torment, but they accept it as fact nonetheless, which suggests that they do not in fact judge the merits of theological claims based solely on what was comforting or fulfilling.

Finally, such a criterion provides no basis by which to distinguish between truth claims. Most religionists claim that their belief is true to the exclusion of competing claims which others might find equally fulfilling. So they must be using criteria to distinguish the true from the false other than how it makes one feel.

In any case, I'd like to see the religionist who would go under the knife with an unqualified surgeon solely on the basis that the surgeon had an extraordinarily faith in his own abilities. They'd want evidence in his past abilities, not just a confident assertion of competence...
Posted 32 months ago. ( permalink )

makelessnoise    says:

Okay, so those are some good comments, but please bear in mind that my comment about life being "happier, more fulfilling and more beautiful" was said in response to the assertion that religion lacks "proof." The argument about the surgeon nicely makes the point I'm trying to convey - the surgeon, from his own experiences, leads him to believe himself capable, but his conviction does not transfer to any sane patient. It is proof in the first person, as in "proof to me," but not in the second person, as in "proof to you." Further, it can't be quantified and therefore useless for comparisons to other churches or a hallucinogenic drug. An outside observer has no choice but to accept all such varied testimonies as roughly equivalent.

Simply put, a believer has an experience and believes it to be true. It may seem inadequate or flawed in logic - even to them, but in the eye of the beholder it is undeniable. Hence my point that it qualifies as 'proof' to them - but of little value to anyone else. I'm only asserting that a believer can have proof.

Lastly, I agree that is problematic for religions to make assertions about science (and history, and many other topics). They hated Galileo for saying it was actually the Earth which revolved around the Sun. Someone who has no mechanism for evaluating new information seems doomed to deal with contradictions only by hiding his head in the sand.
Posted 32 months ago. ( permalink )

hoveringdog    says:

Okay, so the illustration about the surgeon would be more accurate if instead it were an unqualified surgeon about whom the patient had a strong gut feeling. Then again, I can see that actually happening, and it's a wee bit scary.

The problem with the distinction you're making between "proof to me" and "proof to you", though, is that religion doesn't merely make claims true only to the believer, but, as I mentioned, claims about history, science, and cosmology that have real-world consequences outside the private world of faith. Otherwise, I'd be content not to point out that the emperor is naked. But when medical research is blocked because someone asserts that an undifferentiated cell mass has a soul with the same value as a fully sentient human being; when science teachers are prevented from teaching their subject because it contradicts a millennia-old myth about fruits and snakes; and when (to be ecumenical about it) young men walk into crowded markets strapped with explosives in order to claim their seventy-two virgins, then it becomes an issue for the rest of us.

And anyway, the inward experiential proof is still true also for those who are clearly suffering from psychological delusion. Hell, when I was a fundamentalist myself I had some bizarre experiences that I know recognize as having been purely psychological. Or as I remember Larry Flynt once saying in an interview about his own conversations with Jesus, "a little lithium made him go away". :)
Posted 32 months ago. ( permalink )

makelessnoise    says:

Right. My position only applies to a believer's feelings about his religion, and not a religion's stance on, well, anything. Teachers, politicans, beuraucrats and clergy need to understand distinction between conclustions based on scientific principals, and those based on religious principles. Context is everything! Blurring those lines results in all sorts of suffering - and you've cited good examples.

And yes - inward proof applies equally to the certifiable. However, unverifiable conviction doesn't automatically make such a person dangerous or malicious. I just don't want that person making decisions for me based on those convictions. In that, I think, we certainly agree.
Posted 32 months ago. ( permalink )

clintspicx    says:

Ha Ha Ha! I really enjoyed reading these past few postings! I just sit back and look at the big picture and think its so awesome to see people think and share according to own personal belifes. Oh and Hovering, I wasn't directing that post of mine to you. I was just addressing a thought.
I just think its interesting how everyday we wake up and the sun rises and every day we sleep and the sun sets. We know that for a fact that it does this because its been doing the same thing for the past million years. But lets say its 2 in the morning and I told you that the sun wasn't going to rise. What would you believe? Obveously the facts. Its the scientific principal that the sun will rise. So when a person felt a simple feeling of sound understanding that could not be moved, could it be true? I hate to get into the bible and start throwing stuff around because I don't know your thoughts on the bible, but Paul was sent before the judges and was told to deny having ever seen a "light". He would die before he denied it. I can also use my own experiances. I served an LDS mission in Brazil and I walked through mud up to my wast in rainstorms that you only see on National Geographic. I have walked literally thousands of miles, in my course of preaching and serving. I have been shot at and robbed, I have been spit on and suffered hunger. One time I lived on nothing but coconuts for 2 weeks cuz thats all we had. So where am I getting at? I hated it...yet I loved it...I actually have healed the lame and watched people who couldn't walk...walk. I have restored a mans home when a micro burst destroyed it and we didn't ask for anything in return, we didn't seek to convert him, we just wanted to help. I have felt hate or in a belivers words evil and yet have seen good even when all was lost you could say miricales. Was it psycological delusions. No way! It was so real and so profound that I could not deny it. Yet after my mission I came home to the world and lost the feelings. I stopped praying and studying and the power faded and it wasn't as strong as it was while in Brazil. I did end up choosing wrong choises and have paid consiquenses and there was a point where I had to choose to give it all up (my beliefs)...everything I had experianced. But I didn't because I couldn't deny those feelings and betray my so called God who I belived gave them to me.

So I guess what I am saying is I don't think that psychological delusions arn't always the reason why people feel these things. If that where the case, the whole world would be CRAZY! I think its the persons choise to seek out these feelings. Its there, something so powerful its undenyable. Can you say you (I am refuring to everyone) have experianced it?

I respect all faiths and beliefs. I love people and love who we as a society are. I am not pointing fingers on who is wrong or right and I think people are to harsh on judging faiths, we should be making bridges of faith not bruning. I mean who cares if Scientioligy has us beat in the UK. Does that mean we arn't welcomed? Nah, I think its great that Scientoligy, Buddist, Muslim, Chistianity, Hot Dogging or what ever you believe exsist because for the most part, there has to be something that drew individuals to these believe these things make them happy.
Posted 32 months ago. ( permalink )

hoveringdog    says:

Problem is that people from numerous religions and from no particular religion at all have had similar experiences, each offered in support of contradictory claims. So revelatory experiences get us no further in regard to the content of religious truth.

And I think Hume pretty much clinched the argument against miracles a couple centuries ago. We have frequent experiences of people being deceived or else propagating deceptions; but miracles, violations of natural law, are by definition rare, if they occur at all. So, Hume asks, with regard to the resurrection as his example, "Which is more likely – that a man rose from the dead or that this testimony is mistaken in some way?" We have universal experience that people don't undergo supernatural resurrections, but we have frequent experiences of people being mistaken. So the wisest and most reasonable course would always be to assume the latter.

And is it possible that the "whole world" is crazy? Most people on the planet were, at one time or another, mistaken about a great number of things: the shape of the earth, its position in the cosmos, the existence of dragons, the origin of species to name a few. But let me ask this: Would it be possible for most people on the planet to be infected by a virus to which only a few remained immune? Absolutely. And I suggest that religion is just such an infection, a meme complex, a virus of the mind spread from religionist to religionist.

The only reason we don't see the bizarre myths of the Judeo-Christian worldview (among which I'd include those of Mormonism) as being bizarre is because we've become socialized with them. Read about, say, the cargo cults of Vanuatu and honestly ask yourself whether their belief in the second coming of the American "John Frum" is any stranger than the Christian belief in the return of a first-century Palestinian Jew...
Posted 32 months ago. ( permalink )

brentdanley    says:

Great stuff man. You've read Dawkins. I need to read The God Delusion again.

--
Seen in my recent comments. (?)
Posted 32 months ago. ( permalink )

sparkledvintagecharm says:

I love this pic. I am a proud Mormon
Posted 27 months ago. ( permalink )

xangoplus says:

Great photo Hoveringdog and I am extremely impressed with your responses.... I had to add this to my favs just to get back and finish reading all the comments later...
I am a Return Missionary recently labeled a "blue domer" ...I wont even begin to comment on the mormon delusions...
We have to remember flickr is a photo site, not a proselyting site!
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

brentdanley    says:

xangoplus - I love how "Christians" love to discount Mormonism for its supposed lack of orthodoxy. The fact is, theists of all stripes are equally deluded! They all believe they can talk to their invisible all-powerful buddy and that he/she/it gives a crap about the minutiae of their lives and will alter natural laws for their benefit if they just follow a few simple rules. It's all quite funny really--in a very sad kind of way. They trumpet their knowledge in a vacuum of evidence (faith) as a positive virtue. That is downright dangerous.

--
Seen in my recent comments. (?)
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

xangoplus says:

I just finished all the comments...Great way to wrap it up Brent...
Clintspicx shared his mission experiences..for a minute there I was seeing the testimony method....you know, when someone disagrees with your belief, just bear testimony and they cant refute that! Thats the classic MTC training in action!
Clint, I am sure by now you realize YOU didnt heal the lame.
The Placebo effect comes to mind for some reason
.
I too had a great two years in France. I learned and had experiences of a lifetime.
But when I got back to life I let it go.

Funny thing is, I was transferred to NY on my job. Near Palmyra. Where it all began. (I know, where it was reorganized ...) The church is extremely weak there. I began studying the church and it's doctrine again and discovered too many flaws. It isnt what THEY want us to believe.
If it works for you, I'm glad. It just doesnt for me anymore.

Okay, Im off my soap box for now.

Brent, I will have to check out your other comments.
Posted 25 months ago. ( permalink )

tacosrgood says:

Hover,
I could not believe it when i saw this pic! That Elder was my mission companion! He's a really great guy. Wow, what are the odds? Must have been middle of 2005 or so? I love Nottingham, i was there in December when the german market comes to the city centre. He was with another companion in Beeston, a little guy from Portugal. But his next area was in Nottingham city with me. Nice Pic! Brought back some good memories of your great country
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

hoveringdog    says:

Ha, I wish it were my country. I was there for grad school and badly want to move back. I miss the human circus every weekend at the Market Square and all the pensioners in Beeston who would talk your ear off if you gave them half the chance. But, for the time being, I'm stuck back in American suburbia...
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

clintspicx    says:

xangoplus...hmmm who says that I didn't heal the lame? You weren't there with me. A large part of my faith is the things that I did do on my mission. I would tell you all that I did but it wouldn't matter because you wouldn't believe it anyways.
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

hoveringdog    says:

Well, I can't speak for xangoplus, but if you were to claim to have miraculously cured the lame (or other such miracle), I'd of course be disinclined to believe for the mere reason that the probability of your either being deceived about the nature of what happened or your perpetuating a deception yourself is far greater than the probability that some miraculous and supernatural event occurred. The former is common and well established by observation and analogy; the latter, not so much. I think Hume was pretty much on the money when he said, “No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish.” The burden of proof to establish a miraculous event is huge, and I don't see why anyone is obligated to believe in a miracle claim unless such proof is produced...
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

brentdanley    says:

who says that I didn't heal the lame?

Me. And I served a mission, too.

Tell me this...why couldn't Joseph Smith re-translate the stolen 116 pages?

The answer, of course, is that the conspirators changed the words.

D&C 10:11 And behold, I say unto you, that because they have altered the words, they read contrary from that which you translated and caused to be written.

Do you really believe this shit???

--
Seen in my recent comments. (?)
Posted 23 months ago. ( permalink )

calichelovek says:

I served a mission too, I spent two years in Russia (yes, it's cold there).

As you can imagine I've talked to a lot of atheists about the meaning of life, God and like topics as the large majority of the Russian population is atheist.

Quoting scripture, sharing experiences, pointing to archeological or historical evidence won't do much good. At least, Hoveringdog you seem to have put a lot of thought into it. In the end, that's all we (as LDS missionaries) ask. Think about it, consider what we offer, read and pray (if you are so inclined) and make your decision. Hoveringdog, if your choice has been made it is, of course, to be respected. But as a Christian we feel it is our obligation to offer. Our current church leaders have organized this effort into the present day 19-21 year old not-so-great-at-tie-tying missionary effort. But come on guys, give us a break! The kid is trying hard and not hurting anyone.

And for brentdanley, congratulations on the weakest antimormon attack I have heard. Is that supposed to be a reason big enough to leave the Church? You gotta do better than that :)
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

brentdanley    says:

congratulations on the weakest antimormon attack I have heard.

LOL! Can you provide an explanation as to why it is weak or are you just going to declare it so? The logical building blocks which attempt to buoy the truth claims of Mormons rests entirely on the Book of Mormon in the following way: if the Book of Mormon is true then Joseph Smith is a prophet of god, if Joseph Smith is a prophet of god then the church he invented is the true church of god. No doubt that you are well-versed in this line of argument; it has been pounded into your brain every week in Gospel Doctrine class, seminary, and at the MTC. This logic cascades the other way, too: if the Book of Mormon is not true then Joseph Smith was not a prophet of god, if Joseph Smith is not a prophet of god then the church he invented is not the true church of god. If Joseph Smith made it all up then the house of cards which is your faith crashes spectacularly to the floor.

Why was the Introduction to the Book of Mormon changed recently? Because overwhelming DNA evidence contradicted the claims made by Bruce R. McConkie in the Introduction.

What do Mormons think about dinosaurs? Can you answer that honestly without feeling like a complete moron? Do you really believe dinosaur fossils were in the chunks god used to "organize" Earth?

By itself the 116 pages isn't sufficient for proving the Book or Mormon is a total work of fiction. How about the fact that prayers aren't answered (in any measurable way), miracles don't occur (again, in a measurable, statistically verifiable way), Mormons are no better off than the Gentiles, or that NO archaeological evidence has ever been found which corroborates the stories in the Book of Mormon? How about the fact that there are no gold plates, sword of Laban, or Urim and Thummim for us to examine? It's a necessary convenience to have them "removed" if one wants to perpetuate a conspiracy.

How about the fact that Mormons believe the Earth was actually flooded and that Noah floated about on the water in a wooden boat with two of every "kind"? It seems like this alone is sufficient for proving that revelation isn't going on today. Couldn't god just whisper to Gordon in the upper room of the SLC temple, "Hey, Hinck, it didn't really happen that way."?

--
Seen in my recent comments. (?)
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

brentdanley    says:

You speak and read Russian, I do not. If someone asked me to translate a Russian text into English I could do it if (it's a very big if) the person who would read the translation also didn't know Russian. Essentially, I could write anything I wanted. If I were asked to again translate the same text I would have significant problems and be rightfully declared a fraud.

If this person asked YOU to translate the text, you could do it and both versions would be close enough that a reasonable person would conclude that you did indeed translate them and that you know both Russian and English.

For this reason it is significant that Joseph didn't (couldn't) retranslate the section of the gold plates which had already been translated. If someone had the manuscript and was able to compare the two Joseph would be seen as a fraud and his whole conspiracy would end. From the Salt Lake City Messenger:

Joseph Smith's words, "All is lost! all is lost!," show the gravity of the predicament he found himself in. He realized that since he had not retained a copy of the 116 pages, he could not reproduce exactly the same material as the first part of the Book of Mormon. it would, therefore, be a book without a beginning! A Mormon critic, M. T. Lamb, succinctly pointed out the dilemma facing Joseph Smith: "The general belief was that she [Mrs. Harris] burned it [i. e., the manuscript]. But the prophet Joseph evidently was afraid she had not, but had secretly hid it, for the purpose of entrapping him, should he ever attempt to reproduce the pages. If the work was really of God, the manuscript could be reproduced word for word without a mistake. If, however, Joseph inspired it himself, his memory would hardly be adequate to such a task, without numberless changes or verbal differences - and thus 'give himself away,' since he loudly professed to be all the time aided 'by the gift and power of God.' " (The Golden Bible, page 119)

For those of you not familiar with the lost 116 pages of the Book of Mormon manuscript, you can read about it here.

--
Seen in my recent comments. (?)
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

makelessnoise    says:

Brent - I know we've both got zero chance of changing each other's minds on this, but I have to take issue with your argument. You've still got the problem of explaining how a 23 year old kid could have written such a book in 3 months.

It's a hard case to make that a work containing so much moral wisdom, historical accuracies, doctrinal assertions, and consistencies in 'writing fingerprints' from author to author could have been done in 3 months by anyone, let alone some kid. It came from somewhere. Your best argument is that 'Joseph made it up?' 8 people went on record saying the Golden Plates existed, and another 3 testified they had a divine manifestation of the Plates and the authenticity of the translation - a testimony they never denied in spite of each being excommunicated from the religion.

Your assertion is merely supposition. It is conjecture. If God is real and Joseph was telling the truth, then it's just possible that God has his reasons for stopping re-translation. You just can't explain away the value of information in the 529 pages we do have.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

makelessnoise    says:

Brent - looking at your comment responding to "weak attacks"

Man, you've got some anger. Yes, the Book of Mormon test cuts both ways - if it's true, or if it's false. We know.

Mormons can believe in dinosaurs, evolution, and in a non-literal Genesis. We don't all agree, but don't tell me that I'm not allowed to think what I think. God's got some explaining to do, but I can wait 'til I get to the other side. I can live with certain incongruencies without having a crisis of faith. Set your traps if you must, but you're only hurting people who want to live honest lives of service and integrity. So lighten up.

As for Noah's story, you're not just picking on the LDS. You seem to have a beef with a much larger audience. My $0.02 on that is for Noah to think the whole world was flooded, everything he could see would have to be under water. A local flood could convince a guy that it was world wide. Doesn't mean it literally was, just looked that way to Noah. Sheesh.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

brentdanley    says:

Your assertion is merely supposition. It is conjecture.

So is yours.

It's a hard case to make that a work containing so much moral wisdom, historical accuracies, doctrinal assertions, and consistencies in 'writing fingerprints' from author to author could have been done in 3 months by anyone, let alone some kid.

Ever heard of plagiarism? Ever wonder why when the Bible is quoted in the Book of Mormon it is in archaic 16th- and 17th-century vocabulary?

you're only hurting people who want to live honest lives of service and integrity.

How, exactly, are they being hurt? I could make a much more compelling case in the opposite direction. Delusions affect every aspect of a Mormon's life! You can play the victim card if you like, but I'm not buying it.

Mormons can believe in dinosaurs, evolution, and in a non-literal Genesis.

No, they can't. Mormons claim divine modern-day revelation. This leaves no room for inconsistency and interpretation. You can't have it both ways.

You seem to have a beef with a much larger audience.

I'm an anti-theist. Mormons are better, and worse, than other Christians. They're all deluded, however.

A local flood could convince a guy that it was world wide.

It is just an inconvenience that part of the story entails GOD SPEAKING TO NOAH and telling him the earth would be flooded? Did GOD know it would be a regional flood? You can't revise your understanding every time science proves the ridiculousness of it! I love that to make your point you've reduced the Biblical prophet Noah to just "a guy".

--
Seen in my recent comments. (?)
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

makelessnoise    says:

Well - it's going about as well as I expected.

Is it still plagiarism if you say all along that the work isn't yours?

Would you feel better if everyone was a hopeless (as in having no hope of anything after death), non-theist like yourself? You want to deny people of hope? I consider Hindus and Buddists' hopes as false hope, but I don't begrudge them their views. You're telling people that they believe in "shit" and "delusions" and then say you're not being hurtful. Seems you're being belligerent and abrasive. I don't believe you are responding to this thread because 'you care so much about people.'

I believe in science, biology, paleontology, astronomy and whatever the hell else I want, and can still keep my recommend. And, again, I believe in a non literal Genesis. Most Mormons do. You are not the authority you'd like to believe you are.

Noah, like any prophet, is just human. Noah made record that all the Earth was covered (he witnessed it) and told everyone. Just like witnesses at a baptism - even if they erroneously say that a person was immersed when he or she wasn't, it still counts, and God knows it.

You have one hard heart, man. I don't have to hate my faith just because you do. I prefer to live with hope, and it's my choice.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

hoveringdog    says:

Ever heard of plagiarism? Ever wonder why when the Bible is quoted in the Book of Mormon it is in archaic 16th- and 17th-century vocabulary?

And often inaccurately too. It reads like an attempt to write in Jacobean English without a thorough understanding of Jacobean pronoun and verb inflections (e.g. shifting between the plural and singular pronouns, problems with subject-verb agreement, and so on). Not to mention the passages lifted straight from the King James bible that preserve intact some of the KJV translators' archaisms and flagrant translational errors.

I don't know enough about the details of Spalding-Rigdon theory (or any of the other speculations about the book's origins) to say one way or another whether I buy it, although it seems a lot more probable than disappearing gold plates and divine communications. I'm again going with Hume here, where he asks us to consider in regard to miracle claims "whether it be more probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that the fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle."

The nineteenth century was rife with literary forgeries, fabricated "ancient" documents, and bizarre speculations about the Native Americans. On the other hand, we don't have a lot (or any, really) conclusive evidence of gods dictating books to human beings. So it seems far more probable that what we have in the book of Mormon is a literary fabrication...
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

makelessnoise    says:

If JS got the text from someone else, who was it? How did he hide the 'original' authors? How come no else one claimed to have written or seen any passages? If they were 'fabricated ancient documents,' how did an unschooled farmer translate them?

"Jacobean English?" You think JS knew enough about language to attempt to write 500+ pages of a certain dialect or style? Remember - 23 years old. Farmer.

I hear a lot of how it isn't likely that he did it (Agreed. It isn't likely. Neither is a hole-in-one.), but I don't hear much about how he DID do it.

He couldn't have done it without help. The Book clearly has wisdom beyond a 23 year old's. So who helped him? How did he keep the helper from talking, and get witnesses to swear true even on their death beds?

If it's not how he said it happened, how did it happen?
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

hoveringdog    says:

I don't know enough about the history of early Mormonism (nor, it seems, does anyone) to speculate on what went on out of the public view. The records and testimonies that I have seen are incomplete and often contradictory at best.

Perhaps we underestimate the extent of Joseph Smith's literacy; perhaps one of his better educated associates acted as a ghost writer and never had the opportunity or reason to expose the ruse; perhaps Joseph Smith stole or plagiarized the book from a source now lost. Speculation, yes, but more probable on principle than the alternative that Joseph Smith received the books from some heavenly communication, an event for which we have no historical analogy or precedent.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

makelessnoise    says:

Hovering - Again, I appreciate your tone. Your position is intellectually honest and non-judgmental. I agree that his statements are extraordinary.

As for precedent, you could go to the Bible, which has a similar record for authenticity - dubious origins, little historical evidence of events (and some places), claims of miraculous, science-defying events and divine communication. Not a very persuasive argument to a non-theist, but it could be considered a precedent. Modern claims of such events often result in forcible doses of lithium.

It's a tough discussion since there isn't even a consensus on God's existence. Much less speculation on what he would say or how he would interact.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

hoveringdog    says:

Modern claims of such events often result in forcible doses of lithium.

Well, that's the problem really. People suffer from verifiable delusions quite frequently. And likewise, religious frauds are exposed all the time. The chance that one, or even several, such deluded individuals or frauds could have managed to pass without being explicitly exposed, especially in an age without the Internet, mass media, or any investigative journalism to speak of, seems rather high, if not inevitable. So the burden of proof to demonstrate a genuine supernatural experience seems incredibly high, and I've yet to see the LDS church or its apologists meet that burden of proof.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

calichelovek says:

Well, it's definitely not true that either one of us is going to change each other's mind. I'm sorry you feel like I insulted your intellect, but really, this is still one of the weaker attacks I've faced. I don't mean that as an insult, but rather as an insight. One benefit of an LDS mission is that you are faced with rejection, doubt, anger, prejudice, bigotry and other negative situations, (for the record my time as a missionary was a life-changing positive experience but this isn't a novel). Questions are asked, questions that I often didn't know the answer to at the time.

The questions you have are questions I have had. Truthfully, I had way more questions than you had. I dated a girl that was interested in the church when I was 18. She began meeting with the missionaries but her mother was against it and began flooding her with books and website and things. Yes, I've waded through the trash and it wasn't pleasant. Now, if you are a person of faith genuinely interested there are answers. If you are not interested and want to prove faith is stupid, the church is false and we are idiots, then no answer will suit you. If no answer is going to make you happy, why ask the question? Better yet, why ask the question in a confronting manner?

I love flickr and come on here because I love looking at beautiful pictures of places I have been and want to go, but I am a busy guy and don't have enough time to answer every one of your points. In fact, since I began responding a few hours ago multiple comments have been added. That being said, one point I would like to make is this:


"Mormons can believe in dinosaurs, evolution, and in a non-literal Genesis."

"No, they can't. Mormons claim divine modern-day revelation. This leaves no room for inconsistency and interpretation. You can't have it both ways."

Above is your quote Brent. Your mistake is that you assume modern-day revelation answers every question known to man. Does it? It does not, could it? Yes. However, in case you were unaware, the LDS Church leadership has not released a public statement regarding dinosaurs or the above mentioned topics, nor do we study that in Sunday School. In fact, there are subtle references to scientific theories throughout the scriptures including "And the land of Jerusalem and the land of Zion shall be turned back into their own place, and the earth shall be like as it was in the days before it was divided," (D&C 133:24), a reference to a super continent or Pangea. Yes, we do believe in science and that a tiny fraction of God's knowledge is now available to us. I myself believe it is perfectly plausible that the process of evolution was used at one point during the creation. More importantly though, in an interview to obtain a Temple Recommend (basically the highest "test" one would undergo in the Church regarding beliefs) you are not asked about evolution, dinosaurs, or anything else. So please, don't tell me what I, as a Mormon, can and can not believe. You're wrong.

No one is going to change over an internet chat or a comment on flickr. So why the negativity? Would you appreciate us attacking Hillary and the time you spend at Clinton rallies? Probably not.

Hoveringdog, one quick thought; a religious man of any faith would argue there has been many precedents of heavenly communication. Also, I like this picture. I wish someone would of taken some candids of me when I was in Russia. That would be pretty sweet.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

calichelovek says:

Jeez, you guys post quicker than I can even finish one! I was thinking the same thing hoveringdog, your manner and tone is much appreciated.

The burden of proof is an interesting burden to put on a Church. How can you apply it when a basic tenet of religion is faith? This really comes down to an argument of faith vs proof. Evidence doesn't seem to cut it in those case, only proof. How can you have evidence convincing enough (for those not wanting to rely on faith) of something so incomprehensible as an eternal being? It's one of those things where we will see when the time comes. We have faith in the Gospel and evidence we have, and therefore don't apply the burden of proof and demands it of our God . This is almost cliche, but how do you prove to a child that being nice is good, and correct. You can tell him, show some evidence of unhappiness or other consequences, but how do you prove that to a 3 year old? You probably can't. For a time, they need to rely on trust.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

makelessnoise    says:

The content of the Book of Mormon does not feel like the ramblings of a deluded person. Someone dismissing it as worthless is giving a dishonest evaluation. The concepts are lucid, often unique and profound. There is simply too much of value for any lone, simple explanation. In that regard, JS's explanation is arguably the simplest (without being the most likely).

No theist, apologist, Pope or guru has ever met a scientific burden of proof of divinity. No atheist, nihilist or moralist has been able to definitively prove the contrary. If there is a God that put us here, it looks like there isn't going to be a neon sign. There must some onus on ourselves to seek an answer. 'Course if God doesn't exist, it's a wild goose chase. What's a guy to do?
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

brentdanley    says:

You are not the authority you'd like to believe you are.

Nice ad hominem. I was a full-time proselytizing missionary, former gospel doctrine teacher, sunday school president, elder's quorum president, young men's president, seminary graduate, and have performed MANY baptism, sealing, and endowment ordinances in many different temples. Perhaps you're right.

U-N-C-L-E! This IS pointless.

cowtipper1 - You should read from the beginning. I do understand Mormonism and I know many Mormons (like, everyone in my family, for starters). CongraDulations.

--
Seen in my recent comments. (?)
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

hoveringdog    says:

cowtipper1 - How is being critical of someone's beliefs "bashing" or "judging" them? Religious claims are claims about the reality that we all inhabit together, not merely private opinions, and those beliefs fundamentally affect the way people behave and thereby affect the society they inhabit and the lives of those who don't share their perspective. It seems only natural that those beliefs should be subject to vigorous debate. I'm personally not "scared" of Mormons, but I suspect that people who oppose open debate on rival truth claims are certainly afraid of something...
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

cowtipper1 says:

what i dont understand is why a PHOTOGRAPHY web sight has turned into a debate club. i decided to look at this website for the photos and then was surprised when i see that people are saying offensive things that directly affect me and a lot of other people that i know.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

hoveringdog    says:

Um, yeah, welcome to the Internet, you must be new here.

Flickr isn't a photography website; it's a photography community, and as in any large and diverse community, people talk about a lot of different subjects, and not only those that you might find benign and pleasant. I wouldn't walk down a busy metropolitan street, interrupting every conversation I found controversial and insisting they discuss something more agreeable with my personal dispositions. I don't see why that same etiquette ought not apply in a similarly diverse online community.

If you don't like it, click somewhere else. I'm sure there are plenty of groups and photostreams on Flickr that discourage open dialog on controversial issues. I happen to like a lively debate, so I'm not about to censor it here.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

makelessnoise    says:

cowtipper - hoveringdog is right, this is a place for sharing information, ideas, and all sorts of things. If you think this forum is offensive, then you haven't looked very hard. Plenty of photos and threads (on flickr and elsewhere) tell details of the endowment in the most degrading and insulting terms (and people wonder why Mormons are so quiet about their most sacred ordinances). This thread is practically a model of decorum. Hoveringdog especially has been very considerate of people droning on and on under his photograph.

I'm glad to talk to people who think differently than I. I think it's healthy. No one forces me to read, and no one forces me to respond. I think flickr would be far less of a site if it were confined to only photographic topics.
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

Ariel_7777 says:

ummm....i still like his mini tie...i keep scrolling up just to look at it :)
Posted 22 months ago. ( permalink )

OpenYourEyes says:

1 John 2:18-19 "Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of us."

www . BarackObamaAntichrist . Blogspot . com
Posted 21 months ago. ( permalink )

hoveringdog    says:

I've enjoyed the conversation so far, but I should have figured it would be only a matter of time until the real wingnuts came out to play...
Posted 21 months ago. ( permalink )

makelessnoise    says:

hovering - I second that. I thought I was hearing the theme music to the Twilight Zone.
Posted 21 months ago. ( permalink )

Lorcan Otway    says:

Hi, I'm an admin for a group called Street Evangelists, and we'd love to have your photo added to the group.

Really great photo...
Posted 21 months ago. ( permalink )

Lorcan Otway    says:

Hi, I'm an admin for a group called Street Preachers, and we'd love to have your photo added to the group.

Lively discussion as well!
Cheers
lorcan
Posted 21 months ago. ( permalink )

brentdanley    says:

I'm baaaaack! Haha. I still love this pic. For those who have commented on this pic, you might be interested in joining a new group titled Do You Believe? It's growing fast and should be wicked fun.

--
Seen in my recent comments. (?)
Posted 21 months ago. ( permalink )

lil_miss_whit says:

Well, I love this pic! I am proud of the missionaries in our church (yes I'm mormon, or a Latter Day Saint which is our real name, mormons just a nickname) and I'm so proud of the missionaries out there who keep the rules and teach people our faith. It takes so much courage to learn a new language and move to total strangers to teach what you truly beleive in to the people.... I felt a disapointed and sad reading some of these posts because some aren't very respectful to our religion, and well... I guess theres nothing I can do about it, but thank you The Hermitage, SparkledVintageCharm, ect. who took the words right out of my mouth! :>
Great pic!
Posted 20 months ago. ( permalink )

brentdanley    says:

I felt a disapointed and sad reading some of these posts because some aren't very respectful to our religion

Your religion doesn't deserve respect. It's misogynistic, xenophobic and based on the fictional writings of a charlatan.

--
Seen in my recent comments. (?)
Posted 20 months ago. ( permalink )

Tyrianterror    says:

I's amazing how many views and counter views one image's triggered. With regards belief systems I say each to their own, as long as they don't become totalitarian, sadly so many do. Respecting another's beliefs is a good step forward, on saying that accepting that there are alternate faiths(& non religious views) on this world. This is better than the all too prevailant judgementalism, & "I'm right you're wrong" crap so many express.
A shame that expressing an opinion is seem as disrespect, that's bollocks.
Posted 18 months ago. ( permalink )

AnomePhoto    says:

This is a great photo. Thanks so much for sharing it. I feel so bad for all the Mormon attacks it's caused.
Brentdanley - for some one who is so anti- Mormons, you comment soo much on anything having to do with us. It's interesting really. Why do you bother if you hate the church so much?
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

calichelovek says:

Your religion doesn't deserve respect. It's misogynistic, xenophobic and based on the fictional writings of a charlatan.

Haha, weren't you a Billary supporter? Yes, you are so much more enlightened than the rest of us. Preach on brother! You must be the source of eternal truth the world has been thirsting for!

Seriously though, I can't believe this back-and-forth posting argument is still going on.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

brentdanley    says:

Why do you bother if you hate the church so much?

Because your religion deserves to disappear and be a footnote in religious history. There are many intelligent Mormons who have never considered the alternative and who might be persuaded to doubt, which is the seed of enlightenment. I'm performing a civic responsibility. :)

Your religion is not benign, as was pointed out in the previous comment by calichelovek.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

brentdanley    says:

There's a huge and fundamental difference between hoping something will go away and actively and violently seeking that end.

How about toning down the emotional and personal rhetoric so we can have an intelligent discussion?
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

brentdanley    says:

First, let me be clear, I did not suggest Mormons should disappear, only their silly and stupid religion. Second, what, exactly, is your problem with Ahmadinejad? Please tell me you don't believe everything coming from the Bush Administration.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

hoveringdog    says:

Hermitage, there's a difference between criticizing an ideology and slinging personal insults. So far, I think Brent has done an admirable job avoiding the latter, irrespective of how strongly he feels about the ideology they hold. I'd like it if everyone commenting in my photostream would do likewise, thanks. In any case, it doesn't reflect well on your faith if you can defend it only by insulting people and making hyperbolic associations.

For additional reading, please refer to "guilt by association" and argumentum ad hominem, thanks.
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

brentdanley    says:

I still love your picture. :)
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

hoveringdog    says:

I kinda want to go on a photohunt now for missionaries and clergy of all sorts. I never get this much attention on my photostream...
Posted 17 months ago. ( permalink )

Bunk3r says:

love the "talk to us" caught in the background (upper left)
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )

makelessnoise    says:

Brent - Just rereading our first interaction. My how times have changed. I wouldn't have ever guessed that we would become good friends.
Posted 9 months ago. ( permalink )