The Prometheus Principle - My Path to ?

 Brainstorm:

1 Corinthians 13 Verse 11. "When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." (KJV).

Santa Clause

Crucifixion Story vs. Old Yeller

Prometheus, Lucifer, Lilith

    Satan? Adversary? Dante's Inferno / Devine Comedy; Pan, 

Jezebel, Delilah, Bathsheba

Tyre and Sidon, Sodom and Gomorrah

Ezra, Moses, Noah, Adam

Assyria, Babylon, Greece, Egypt, Rome

Zoroaster, Alexander, Caesar

Mystery Cults, Messiah Cults, Cabal Cults, Cargo Cults, Doomsday Cults.

Moroni 10, Alma 32 - Motivated Reasoning, Confirmation Bias, 

================== Truth

If we have truth, [it] cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed. 

The frightful skeleton of truth must always be exposed ... [the lawyer] must make every conclusion pass the fiery ordeal of pitiless reason. If their conclusions cannot stand this test, they are false." 

- J. Reuben Clark

Harold B. Lee

John Taylor

====================

“We don’t have to question anything in the church, don’t get off into that. Just stay in the Book of Mormon. Just stay in the Doctrine and Covenants. Just listen to the prophets. Just listen to the apostles. We won’t lead you astray, we cannot lead you astray.“ 

Elder Ballard from a 2015 YSA devotional.

=======================

J Reuben Clark: 

By 1917, however, Reuben was asking himself some religious questions that took him years to resolve. In one personal memo he began, "If we have truth, [it] cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not truth, it ought to be harmed." From that premise he added the observation that scientists and lawyers (like himself) were not blindly believing and that they must refuse to be deceived by others or by their own wishful thinking. "A lawyer must get at facts, he must consider motives -- he must tear off the mask and lay bare the countenance, however hideous. The frightful skeleton of truth must always be exposed ... [the lawyer] must make every conclusion pass the fiery ordeal of pitiless reason. If their conclusions cannot stand this test, they are false." During the same year the increasingly introspective lawyer asked himself the questions: Are we not only entitled, but expected to think for ourselves? Otherwise there does our free agency come in? His answer was a resounding: "If we are blindly to follow some one else we are not free agents.... That we may as a Church determine for ourselves our course of action, is shown my the Manifesto [abandoning the practice of polygamy]. We may not probably take an affirmative stand, i.e., adopt something new but we may dispense with something." Perhaps he had never before questioned the assumptions that lay behind some of the simple faith of his youth, but at midlife J. Reuben Clark, Jr. proclaimed that there must be no forbidden questions in Mormonism.

The directions to which his philosophy of religious inquiry led him were indicated in his musings about two essentials of Mormonism: the revelations of Joseph Smith, Jr. and the Church belief in progression toward godhood. As he examined the revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants concerning the structure of the Church government, Reuben Clark wondered to what extent Joseph Smith's reading or experience, "his own consciousness," had contributed to what he set down, and when Reuben pondered the Mormon belief in the potential of individuals to attain the godly stature of their Father in Heaven, his logical mind boggled a bit. "Is Space or occupied portions of it divided among various deities -- have they great 'spheres of influence'? War of Gods -- think of wreck of matter involved -- if matter used -- or would it be a war of forces?" In his mid-forties, he regarded these as legitimate doctrinal inquiries but soon realized that each question concerning doctrine led to other questions, each of which was further removed from rational verification. Reuben soon came to the conclusion he described in later years to the non-Mormon president of George Washington University: "For my own part I early came to recognize that for me personally I must either quit rationalizing ... or I must follow the line of my own thinking which would lead me I know not where."

But J. Reuben Clark soon recognized where an uncompromising commitment to rational theology would lead him, and he shrank from the abyss. "I came early to appreciate that I could not rationalize a religion for myself, and that to attempt to do so would destroy my faith in God," he later wrote to his non-Mormon friend. "I have always rather worshipped facts," he continues," and while I thought and read for a while, many of the incidents of life, experiences and circumstances led, unaided by the spirit of faith, to the position of the atheist, yet the faith of my fathers led me to abandon all that and to refrain from following it.... For me there seemed to be no alternative. I could only build up a doubt. --If I were to attempt to rationalize about my life here, and the life to come, I would be drowned in a sea of doubt."

All the confidence of J. Reuben Clark's commitment to rational inquiry in religious matters evaporated. He had once believed that in intellectual faith "we may not probably take an affirmative stand, i.e., adopt something new but we may dispense with something," but Reuben found that such an attempt could only lead to dispensing with everyting [sic]. As he cast about for some way of explaining his position to others, he discovered an anecdote about Abraham Lincoln, who justified reading the Bible despite his reputed agnosticism with the comment: "I have learned to read the Bible. I believe all I can and take the rest on faith." To a friend, Reuben related the Lincoln story and added, "Substituting in the substance the words 'our Mormon Scriptures,' you will have about my situation." He later commended that anecdote to a general conference of the Church. Convinced that no religious faith could withstand uncompromising intellectual inquiry, Reuben concluded that in Babylon as well as in Zion, the refusal to rationalize one's religious beliefs was the highest manifestation of faith.

=================================

====================

Walk to the Edge of the Light - Boyd K. Packer:

“Shortly after I was called as a General Authority, I went to Elder Harold B. Lee for counsel. He listened very carefully to my problem and suggested that I see President David O. McKay. President McKay counseled me as to the direction I should go. I was very willing to be obedient but saw no way possible for me to do as he counseled me to do.

“I returned to Elder Lee and told him that I saw no way to move in the direction I was counseled to go. He said, ‘The trouble with you is you want to see the end from the beginning.’ I replied that I would like to see at least a step or two ahead. Then came the lesson of a lifetime: ‘You must learn to walk to the edge of the light, and then a few steps into the darkness; then the light will appear and show the way before you.’ Then he quoted these 18 words from the Book of Mormon:

“‘Dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith’” (Ether 12:6).

President Boyd K. Packer, President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “The Edge of the Light,” BYU Magazine, Mar. 1991, magazine.byu.edu. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2013/08/move-forward-in-faith?lang=eng

Proceed with Trust - Richard G. Scott

“What do you do when you have prepared carefully, have prayed fervently, waited a reasonable time for a response, and still do not feel an answer? You may want to express thanks when that occurs, for it is an evidence of [Heavenly Father’s] trust. When you are living worthily and your choice is consistent with the Savior’s teachings and you need to act, proceed with trust. As you are sensitive to the promptings of the Spirit, one of two things will certainly occur at the appropriate time: either the stupor of thought will come, indicating an improper choice, or the peace or the burning in the bosom will be felt, confirming that your choice was correct. When you are living righteously and are acting with trust, God will not let you proceed too far without a warning impression if you have made the wrong decision.”

Elder Richard G. Scott of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, “Using the Supernal Gift of Prayer,” Ensign, May 2007, 10. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2013/08/move-forward-in-faith?lang=eng

“There are times when we have to step into the darkness in faith, confident that God will place solid ground beneath our feet once we do. And so I accepted gladly, knowing that God would provide.”

President Dieter F. Uchtdorf, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, “The Why of Priesthood Service,” Ensign, May 2012, 59. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2013/08/move-forward-in-faith?lang=eng

Logic itself affirms that a loving Heavenly Father would not abandon His children without providing a way for them to learn of Him. One of the great messages of the Restoration is that the windows of heaven are open. All who seek to know the truth may, through revelations of the Spirit, know for themselves.

...

Do you want to know the truth of the holy scriptures? Do you wish to break the barriers that separate mortals from the knowledge of eternal verities? Do you wish to know—really know—the truth? Then follow Moroni’s counsel and you will surely find what you seek.

Be sincere. Study. Ponder. Pray sincerely, having faith.

If you do these things, you too will be able to stand with the millions who testify that God once again speaks to man on earth.

A testimony of the truth of the gospel does not come the same way to all people. Some receive it in a unique, life-changing experience. Others gain a testimony slowly, almost imperceptibly until, one day, they simply know.

Study the words of President David O. McKay, who tells of how, in his youth, he knelt and “prayed fervently and sincerely and with as much faith as a young boy could muster” that “God would declare to [him] the truth of his revelation to Joseph Smith.”

President McKay related that when he arose from his knees, he had to admit that “no spiritual manifestation has come to me. If I am true to myself, I must say that I am just the same [boy] that I was before I prayed.”

I don’t know how young David felt in his heart at that time, but I’m sure he must have been disappointed—perhaps frustrated that he didn’t receive the spiritual experience that he had hoped for. But that didn’t discourage him from continuing his search for that knowledge.

The answer to his prayers did come, but not until years later, when he was serving as a missionary. Why was the answer to his prayer so long delayed? President McKay believed that this spiritual manifestation “came as a natural sequence to the performance of duty.”10

The Savior taught a similar principle: When the truth of His message was challenged, He declared, “If any man will do [God’s] will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.”11

Don’t you be discouraged if the answer to your prayer does not come immediately. Study, ponder, pray, sincerely having faith, and live the commandments.

“Dispute not because ye see not,” Moroni taught, “for ye receive no witness until after the trial of your faith.”

...

President Boyd K. Packer said: “A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it. Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that ‘leap of faith,’ as the philosophers call it. It is the moment when you have gone to the edge of the light and step into the darkness to discover that the way is lighted ahead for just a footstep or two.”18

Making a determined and confident public statement of your belief is such a step into the unknown. It has a powerful effect in strengthening your own convictions. Bearing testimony drives your faith deeper into your soul, and you believe more fervently than before.

To those who faithfully bear testimony, the Lord said, “Ye are blessed, for the testimony which ye have borne is recorded in heaven for the angels to look upon; and they rejoice over you, and your sins are forgiven you.”19 I have tried to follow this counsel to bear testimony.

...

As a special witness of the name of Jesus Christ in all the world, I promise you that if you seek the Lord, you will find Him. Ask, and you shall receive.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2000/10/pure-testimony?lang=eng#:~:text=President%20Boyd%20K.,as%20the%20philosophers%20call%20it.

===============

From the talk: The Candle of the Lord by Boyd K. Packer.

It is not unusual to have a missionary say, “How can I bear testimony until I get one? How can I testify that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ, and that the gospel is true? If I do not have such a testimony, would that not be dishonest?”

Oh, if I could teach you this one principle: a testimony is to be found in the bearing of it!

Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that “leap of faith,” as the philosophers call it. It is the moment when you have gone to the edge of the light and stepped into the darkness to discover that the way is lighted ahead for just a footstep or two. “The spirit of man is,” as the scripture says, indeed “the candle of the Lord” (Proverbs 20:27).

...

It is one thing to receive a witness from what you have read or what another has said; and that is a necessary beginning. It is quite another to have the Spirit confirm to you in your bosom that what you have testified is true. Can you not see that it will be supplied as you share it? As you give that which you have, there is a replacement, with increase! To speak out is the test of your faith.

===================

Another apostle, Elder Dallin H. Oaks, has expressed similar sentiments about the obtainment of a testimony before.[2] Elder Gary E. Stevenson, another apostle, has reiterated those sentiments in print.[3]

Critics have also taken issue with a statement by Elder Neil L. Andersen, another apostle, who has counseled those seeking conviction of the truthfulness of Joseph Smith's claims to "[c]onsider recording the testimony of Joseph Smith in your own voice, listening to it regularly, and sharing it with friends. Listening to the Prophet’s testimony in your own voice will help bring the witness you seek."[4]

===================

 Boyd K. Packer, "The Candle of the Lord," Ensign 13 (January 1983); Boyd K. Packer, "The Quest for Spiritual Knowledge," New Era 36 (January 2007). The latter source cited is a reprinting of a talk given at a seminar for new mission presidents on June 25, 1982. This was quoted in Jeremy T. Runnells, CES Letter: My Search for Answers to my Mormon Doubts (American Fork, UT: CES Letter Foundation, 2017), 78. <https://cesletter.org/CES-Letter.pdf>.

 Dallin H. Oaks, “Testimony,” General Conference (April 2008). “We gain or strengthen a testimony by bearing it. Someone even suggested that some testimonies are better gained on the feet bearing them than on the knees praying for them.”

 Gary E. Stevenson, "Testimony: Sharing in Word and Deed," New Era 48 (March 2019).

 Neil L. Andersen, "Joseph Smith," General Conference (October 2014). Quoted in Runnells, CES Letter, 78.

=======================

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/answers/Question:_Is_the_Latter-day_Saint_conception_of_testimony_from_the_Holy_Ghost_threatened_by_neuroscience_or_psychology%3F

As a part of their epistemology, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that commitment and/or belief may be established by spiritual experience. This experience is known as having an experience with the “Holy Ghost” aka the "Holy Spirit."[1] As part of the experience of feeling the Spirit, members will frequently report (among other sensations and phenomena) feelings such as swelling motions in their chest, warmth in the chest, clarity of mind, and revelation of knowledge.

Secularist critics of the Church charge that these experiences may be the result of something else and raise a number of naturalistic counter explanations, stemming from neurological and/or psychological study, that supposedly eliminate the possibility of the experiences being caused by a spiritual being or force that is external to humans. Potential counterexplanations cited include the Backfire Effect (cf. "Belief Perserverance"),[2] Cognitive Dissonance,[3] Confirmation Bias,[4] the Elevation Emotion,[5] Frisson,[6] and the Illusory Truth Effect.[7] Comparisons are also drawn between the feelings associated with the Latter-day Saint understanding of the Spirit and the effects of the God Helmet.[8]

========================

Joseph Smith's claim the Book of Mormon was "the most correct book on the face of the Earth… and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book."

=========================

Adam - God Doctrine - Elohim, Jehovah and Michael were Father, Son and Grandson - the council of gods that created the earth. Adam and one of his wives, Eve, came and created all human bodies and spirits; Adam impregnated Mary and literally fathered Jesus (who is not Jehovah but the greatest of all humanity under the 3 gods.)

 [Multiple General Conference Talks; Orson Pratt threatened with disfellowship for not accepting it; part of temple ceremonies; Thomas Bullock, Heber C. Kimball, George Q. Cannon, Franklin D. Richards - "Holy Ghost strongly confirmed truth of it to me"; Hymns contained the doctrine;  etc.] 

Brigham Young: "When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later."

Franklin D. Richards, accepted the doctrine "that Adam is our Father and our God" as well, stating in a conference held in June 1854 that "the Prophet and Apostle Brigham has declared it, and that it is the word of the Lord".

Wilford Woodruff said. "Adam is our father and God and no use to discuss it with [the] Josephites [Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints] or any one else."

In 1892, the doctrine was publicly opposed in St. George, Utah, by Edward Bunker. The First Presidency—Woodruff, George Q. Cannon, and Joseph F. Smith—traveled to St. George to address the issue. Records of the meeting state that Bunker was corrected: "Pres Woodruff and Cannon showed ... that Adam was an immortal being when he came to this earth and was made the same as all other men and Gods are made."[63] "The doctrine preached and contended for by Father Edward Bunker of Bunkerville was investigated, condemned and Father Bunker set right. Presidents Woodruff and Cannon present."

SHIFT

Joseph F. Smith's minimization: The doctrine was never submitted to the councils of the Priesthood nor to the church for approval or ratification, and was never formally or otherwise accepted by the church. It is therefore in no sense binding upon the Church. Brigham Young's "bare mention" was "without indubitable evidence and authority being given of its truth." Only the scripture, the "accepted word of God," is the Church's standard.

DENUNCIATION

Eventually, the doctrine was publicly denounced as false by LDS Church leaders.[67] In 1976, church president Spencer W. Kimball stated, "We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine."[68][69]

In 1980, apostle Bruce R. McConkie gave a speech elaborating upon the church's position towards the Adam–God theory:

There are those who believe or say they believe that Adam is our father and our god, that he is the father of our spirits and our bodies, and that he is the one we worship.

The devil keeps this heresy alive as a means of obtaining converts to cultism. It is contrary to the whole plan of salvation set forth in the scriptures, and anyone who has read the Book of Moses, and anyone who has received the temple endowment and who yet believes the Adam–God theory does not deserve to be saved.* Those who are so ensnared reject the living prophet and close their ears to the apostles of their day. "We will follow those who went before," they say. And having so determined, they soon are ready to enter polygamous relationships that destroy their souls.

We worship the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost; and Adam is their foremost servant, by whom the peopling of our planet was commenced.[70]

Later the same year, apostle Mark E. Petersen stated:

Adam was not our God, nor was he our Savior. But he was the humble servant of both in his status as an angel. ...

God had only one begotten son in the flesh. But Adam had many, including Cain and Abel and Seth. He lived nearly a thousand years. He could have had hundreds of children in that time.

Then how could it be said by anyone that he had "an only begotten" son? How could all of his other children be accounted for? Were they not all begotten in the flesh?

Were Cain and Abel and Seth and their brothers and sisters all orphans? Was any child ever begotten without a father? Adam was their father, and he had many sons. In no way whatever does he qualify as a father who had only one son in the flesh.

Yet God our Eternal Father had only one son in the flesh, who was Jesus Christ.

Then was Adam our God, or did God become Adam? Ridiculous!

Adam was neither God nor the Only Begotten Son of God. He was a child of God in the spirit as we all are (see Acts 17:29). Jesus was the firstborn in the spirit, and the only one born to God in the flesh. ...

If any of you have been confused by false teachers who come among us, if you have been assailed by advocates of erroneous doctrines, counsel with your priesthood leaders. They will not lead you astray, but will direct you into paths of truth and salvation.[71]

===============================

Book of Mormon Issues:

Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews:

Did Ethan Smith's View of the Hebrews furnish structural material for Joseph Smith's Book of Mormon? It has been pointed out in these pages that there are many things in the former book that might well have suggested many major things in the other. Not a few things merely, one or two, or half dozen, but many; and it is this fact of many things of similarity and the cumulative force of them that makes them so serious a menace to Joseph Smith's story of the Book of Mormon's origin.

— B.H. Roberts, Studies of the Book of Mormon, pg. 240

Roberts gave three conditions that would suggest that one book had been derived from another: that the derivative book had appeared after its model, that the author of the derivative book had access to the model, and that the derivative work be similar to the model. Roberts concluded that View of the Hebrews had been published first, that the possibility that Joseph Smith had access to it was "a very close certainty," and that there were many similarities between the works.[10] The bulk of Roberts's manuscript considers the similarities between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon.[11]

Origin of New World peoples

Roberts states that both View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon claim that the Hebrews "occupied the whole extent of the American continents" and that this idea was "very generally obtained throughout New England."[12] Modern Mormon apologists argue a limited geography theory of the Book of Mormon civilizations, which Roberts himself did not believe "the Book of Mormon would admit our assuming."[13]

Migration

Both View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon refer to a migration of peoples to America. Roberts notes several parallels between the migration of the Jaredites and that of the Ten Lost Tribes in the Jewish apocalypse 2 Esdras (as interpreted by Ethan Smith). Both journeys are "religiously motivated, both groups enter valleys at the commencement of their journeys, both apparently travel north between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, both cross water barriers, both trips take years, and both groups travel to uninhabited lands."[14]

Destruction of Jerusalem

Roberts notes that the entire first chapter of View of the Hebrews describes the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans in A.D. 70. He compares this chapter to the first chapters of the Book of Mormon, in which Lehi prophesies of the destruction of Jerusalem prior to his departure circa 600 B.C.[15] Mormon apologists argue that View of the Hebrews does not refer to the earlier destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians circa 586 B.C.[16]

Lost books

In View of the Hebrews, "an old Indian" said that his ancestors "had a book which they had for a long time preserved," but that "having lost the knowledge of reading it … they buried it with an Indian chief."[17] View of the Hebrews mentions a Jewish phylactery dug from the ground which "contained four folded leaves" of "dark yellow" parchment.[18] Roberts compares this story with Joseph Smith's retrieval of the golden plates in a New York hillock, and adds the question, "Could all this have supplied structural work for the Book of Mormon?"[19]

Breastplate and the Urim and Thummin

View of the Hebrews describes a breastplate "in resemblance of the Urim and Thummin" made of a white conch shell with two holes to which are fastened white buckhorn buttons "as if in imitation of the precious stones of the Urim."[20] Roberts compares this to the Urim and Thummim which Joseph Smith said that he was given for the purpose of translating the golden plates.[21]

"Egyptian" hieroglyphics

View of the Hebrews describes hieroglyphic paintings found in the American southwest.[22] Roberts wrote, "Was this sufficient to suggest the strange manner of writing the Book of Mormon … in an altered Egyptian?"[23] (Joseph Smith said that the golden plates were written in "reformed Egyptian".)

Barbarous versus civilized New World people

View of the Hebrews argues that the Hebrews who arrived on the American continents divided into two classes, that "most of them fell into a wandering idle hunting life" but that "more sensible parts of this people associated together to improve their knowledge of the arts."[24] The more civilized portion of this society separated from the more primitive group, who "lost the knowledge of their having descended from the same family." As a result of "tremendous wars," the civilized group "became extinct."[24] In the Book of Mormon, the Nephites and Lamanites also split into two groups and have frequent wars, which ultimately result in the extinction of the more civilized Nephites.[25]

Government

In both View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon, part of the ancient inhabitants of America changed from monarchical governments to republican governments, and the civil and ecclesiastical power was united in the same person.[26]

Prophecy about the scattering and gathering of Israel

Roberts notes that in both View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon there are extensive quotations from the Book of Isaiah regarding the scattering and future gathering of Israel. Roberts asks, "Did the Author of the Book of Mormon follow too closely the course of Ethan Smith in this use of Isaiah would be a legitimate query."[27] Mormon apologists reply that View of the Hebrews includes many other scriptural prophecies about the restoration of Israel, whereas the Book of Mormon quotes only from Isaiah chapter 11.[28]

White god in the New World

Quetzalcoatl as depicted in the Codex Magliabechiano.

View of the Hebrews discusses legends of what he called the "bearded white god" Quetzalcoatl and proposes that this "lawgiver" or "Mexican messiah" might have been Moses.[29] Ethan Smith also suggests that this belief held by the people of Mexico at the time of Montezuma allowed the Spanish to easily conquer the country because "the Mexicans mistook the white bearded invaders from the east for the descendants of their long cherished culture-hero Quetzalcoatl."[30] Roberts asks rhetorically if "this character spoken of in the View of the Hebrews" furnished the suggestion of Jesus Christ in the New World in the Book of Mormon.

---

Charles Anthon

Anthon described the characters as "evidently copied after the Mexican Calender given by Humboldt, but copied in such a way as not to betray the source whence it was derived." Anthon requested for his letter to be published immediately in case his name was mentioned again "by these wretched fanatics" (Anthon 1834, p. 272).

In 1834, Anthon stated in a letter that, "The whole story about my having pronounced the Mormonite inscription to be 'reformed Egyptian hieroglyphics' is perfectly false. ... I soon came to the conclusion that it was all a trick, perhaps a hoax. ... [Harris] requested an opinion from me in writing, which of course I declined giving."[10] Anthon described the transcript in that letter as containing "(g)reek and Hebrew letters, crosses and flourishes, Roman letters inverted or placed sideways... arranged in perpendicular columns, and the whole ended in a rude delineation of a circle divided into various compartments, decked with various strange marks." Anthon stated in the letter that the story of his supposed authentication was false, that Anthon had identified the writings as a hoax, and that he had told Harris that the writings were part of "a scheme to cheat the farmer [Harris] of his money".[11]

Anthon gave a second account in 1841 that contradicted his 1834 account as to whether he gave Harris a written opinion about the document: "[Harris] requested me to give him my opinion in writing about the paper which he had shown to me. I did so without hesitation, partly for the man's sake, and partly to let the individual 'behind the curtain' see that his trick was discovered. The import of what I wrote was, as far as I can now recollect, simply this, that the marks in the paper appeared to be merely an imitation of various alphabetical characters, and had, in my opinion, no meaning at all connected with them."[12] In the 1841 account, Anthon described the characters as "arranged in columns like the Chinese mode of writing .. (g)reek, Hebrew, and all sort of letters ... intermingled with sundry delineations of half moons, stars, and other natural objects, and the whole ended in a rude representation of the Mexican Zodiac."

Anthon provided a third account in an August 12, 1844 letter and indicated, referring to Harris, "I told the man at once that he was imposed upon and that the writing was mere trash." Anthon described the transcript as containing "in one or two parallel columns rude imitations of Hebrew and Greek characters together with various delineations of sun, moon, stars, &c.."[13]

Anthon in the first two accounts maintained that he told Harris that Harris was the victim of a fraud.[14] Pomeroy Tucker, a contemporary of Harris and Smith, opined in 1867 that all the scholars whom Harris visited "were understood to have scouted the whole pretense as too depraved for serious attention, while commiserating the applicant as the victim of fanaticism or insanity."

-----------

Samuel L. Mitchill

In 1828, Martin Harris, an associate of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Latter Day Saint movement, visited Mitchill to ask him to authenticate the "Reformed Egyptian" characters that Smith said were taken from golden plates to which he said he had been directed by an angel. Mitchill would have been unsympathetic to the view that Indians were related to the Jews or the Egyptians because he was one of the few scholars of his day who believed that Native Americans were descended from Asians. Mitchill left no record of Harris's visit.Richard E. Bennett (Winter 2010), "

------

When writing View of the Hebrews, Smith lived in Poultney, Vermont, a town with a population less than 2,000. Living there at the same time was Oliver Cowdery, who later served as Joseph Smith's scribe for the Book of Mormon. From 1821 to 1826, Ethan Smith was also pastor of the Congregational church that Cowdery may have attended with his family.[3][4] Larry Morris, an LDS scholar, has argued that "the theory of an Ethan Smith-Cowdery association is not supported by the documents and that it is unknown whether Oliver knew of or read View of the Hebrews."[5] In her biography of Joseph Smith, Fawn Brodie wrote, "It may never be proved that Joseph saw View of the Hebrews before writing the Book of Mormon, but the striking parallelisms between the two books hardly leave a case for mere coincidence."

-----------

The Book of Abraham / Papyrus - [relate to mystery schools / obsession with kabal]

Some of the characters are translated to read "Katumin, Princess, daughter of On-i-tas King of Egypt, who began to reign in the year of the world 2962. Katumin was born in the 30th year of the reign of her father and died when she was 28 years old which was in the year 3020." The Egyptian Hieratic characters have been translated by modern Egyptologists to read "Recitation by the Osiris".

==============================

Revisions: Blacks in the priesthood, Adam-God Doctrine, Evolution?, 2nd Coming?, New Jerusalem?, 

"Philosophies of men, mingled with scripture."

FAITH, credulity

    faith in what? in Jesus Christ or in what people say about Jesus Christ?

    Faith vs. Reason? Faith IS reason? Faith vs. Evidence? Faith IS Evidence? 

House of Cards. Jesus Christ. Joseph Smith. Wilford Woodruff quote

The Emperor's New Clothes, The Tripods

Evolution, Scientific Method

Politics - Polygamy, Racism, ERA, Abortion, Gay Rights, 

Personal Revelation? God Told Me. Rodney, Smiths, Roger Billings, Kristen Eve, Heather, Mom (cloud on the mountain), Under the Banner of Heaven, Sword of Laban, Sealed Portion, 

Golden Plates, Treasure Hunting, Lost Tribes, Religious Excitement, Apocalyptic Fever, End of the World Predictions (Pre-Christian, Messianic, New Testament, Illuminati, Rosicrucians, Masons, Thelema, 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, New Age, Scientology, Evangelism, Doomsday Cults.

Zion, New Jerusalem, Temples,  - Peculiar People - Special Creation - American Exceptionalism - Founding Fathers - 

Personal Experiences - Warm Fuzzies - Contrary to reality (memories, perceptions, cognitive issues); Prone to manipulation; Prone to bias.

===================

Human Nature / Cognitive Biases:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

Apophenia - The tendency to perceive meaningful connections between unrelated things. The following are types of apophenia:

Clustering illusion, the tendency to overestimate the importance of small runs, streaks, or clusters in large samples of random data (that is, seeing phantom patterns).

Illusory correlation, a tendency to inaccurately perceive a relationship between two unrelated events.

Pareidolia, a tendency to perceive a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) as significant, e.g., seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon, and hearing non-existent hidden messages on records played in reverse.

---

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. There are multiple other cognitive biases which involve or are types of confirmation bias:

Observer-expectancy effect, when a researcher expects a given result and therefore unconsciously manipulates an experiment or misinterprets data in order to find it (see also subject-expectancy effect).

Selective perception, the tendency for expectations to affect perception.

Semmelweis reflex, the tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts a paradigm.

-------------------

Motivated reasoning

Magical thinking

------------------

Truman Show effect / Exceptionalism

Egocentric bias is the tendency to rely too heavily on one's own perspective and/or have a higher opinion of oneself than reality.

-----------------

Agent detection, the inclination to presume the purposeful intervention of a sentient or intelligent agent.

================================

Escalation of commitment, irrational escalation, or sunk cost fallacy, where people justify increased investment in a decision, based on the cumulative prior investment, despite new evidence suggesting that the decision was probably wrong.

---------------------

Status quo bias, the tendency to prefer things to stay relatively the same.[

System justification, the tendency to defend and bolster the status quo. Existing social, economic, and political arrangements tend to be preferred, and alternatives disparaged, sometimes even at the expense of individual and collective self-interest.

===============

Truthiness

Belief bias, an effect where someone's evaluation of the logical strength of an argument is biased by the believability of the conclusion.

Illusory truth effect, the tendency to believe that a statement is true if it is easier to process, or if it has been stated multiple times, regardless of its actual veracity. These are specific cases of truthiness.

Rhyme as reason effect, where rhyming statements are perceived as more truthful.

Subjective validation, where statements are perceived as true if a subject's belief demands it to be true. Also assigns perceived connections between coincidences.

================

Declinism - The predisposition to view the past favorably (rosy retrospection) and future negatively

==================

Association fallacies include:

Authority bias, the tendency to attribute greater accuracy to the opinion of an authority figure (unrelated to its content) and be more influenced by that opinion.[117]

Cheerleader effect, the tendency for people to appear more attractive in a group than in isolation.[118]

Halo effect, the tendency for a person's positive or negative traits to "spill over" from one personality area to another in others' perceptions of them (see also physical attractiveness stereotype)

==================

Conformity is involved in the following:

Availability cascade, a self-reinforcing process in which a collective belief gains more and more plausibility through its increasing repetition in public discourse (or "repeat something long enough and it will become true").[125] See also availability heuristic.

Bandwagon effect, the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink and herd behavior.[126]

Courtesy bias, the tendency to give an opinion that is more socially correct than one's true opinion, so as to avoid offending anyone.[127]

Groupthink, the psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision without critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints by actively suppressing dissenting viewpoints, and by isolating themselves from outside influences.

Groupshift, the tendency for decisions to be more risk-seeking or risk-averse than the group as a whole, if the group is already biased in that direction

Social desirability bias, the tendency to over-report socially desirable characteristics or behaviours in oneself and under-report socially undesirable characteristics or behaviours.[128] See also: § Courtesy bias.

Truth bias is people's inclination towards believing, to some degree, the communication of another person, regardless of whether or not that person is actually lying or being untruthful.

================

Ingroup bias is the tendency for people to give preferential treatment to others they perceive to be members of their own groups. It is related to the following:

Not invented here, an aversion to contact with or use of products, research, standards, or knowledge developed outside a group.

Outgroup homogeneity bias, where individuals see members of other groups as being relatively less varied than members of their own group.

===================

Shared information bias The tendency for group members to spend more time and energy discussing information that all members are already familiar with (i.e., shared information), and less time and energy discussing information that only some members are aware of (i.e., unshared information).

------------

Memory misattributions include:

Cryptomnesia, where a memory is mistaken for novel thought or imagination, because there is no subjective experience of it being a memory.

False memory, where imagination is mistaken for a memory.

Social cryptomnesia, a failure by people and society in general to remember the origin of a change, in which people know that a change has occurred in society, but forget how this change occurred; that is, the steps that were taken to bring this change about, and who took these steps. This has led to reduced social credit towards the minorities who made major sacrifices that led to the change in societal values.

Source confusion, episodic memories are confused with other information, creating distorted memories.

Suggestibility, where ideas suggested by a questioner are mistaken for memory.

The Perky effect, where real images can influence imagined images, or be misremembered as imagined rather than real

================

Familiarity bias:

what makes the Latter-day Saint spiritual experience superior is that Latter-day Saints believe that the truth about God, life, religion, and more is already known in our hearts. The scriptures inform us that God's law is already written on our hearts.[37] Our fundamental being understands the truth of the entire Plan of Salvation and Restoration at an essential level. When our investigators hear the Gospel being taught to them by missionaries, there is something in them that vibrates in resonance with what is being taught as if it were something that they had already heard before. That is what they feel when the Spirit touches them as well. They feel that the Spirit is something familiar to them. This is part of the Light of Christ concept discussed earlier. As Elder Boyd K. Packer taught, "“It is important for a … missionary … to know that the Holy Ghost can work through the Light of Christ. A teacher of gospel truths is not planting something foreign or even new into an adult or a child. Rather, the missionary or teacher is making contact with the Spirit of Christ already there. The gospel will have a familiar ‘ring’ to them."[38] Prior to their life in bodies, Latter-day Saints believe that all of humankind were in the presence of God and that they heard of God's plan to send them to earth to receive a body, learn good and evil, and eventually return to live with God. To Latter-day Saints, this familiar 'ring' of the Spirit and Gospel are the result of all of mankind's nature that recognizes love and truth as well as their previous existence as spirits in the presence of God and their hearing of the Plan of Salvation prior to their coming to earth and receiving a body.

Cialdini's 6 principles of persuasion. R.A.S.C.L.S. (RASCALS)

1. Reciprocity: Give a little something to get a little something in return. 

2. Commitment/Consistency: People want their beliefs to be consistent with their values. (Ben Franklin Effect?)

3. Social Proof: There’s nothing like feeling validated based on what others are doing.

4. Authority: You will obey me!

5. Liking: The more you like someone, the more you’ll be persuaded by them.

6. Scarcity: When you believe something is in short supply…You want it more!

1. Reciprocity: Give a little something to get a little something in return.

Cialdini’s first principle of persuasion states that human beings are wired to return favors and pay back debts—to treat others as they’ve treated us.

The idea of reciprocity says that people, by nature, feel obliged to provide discounts or concessions to others if they’ve received favors from those same people. Psychology explains this by stressing that humans simply hate to feel indebted to others!

Let’s say that you’re running a popular blog that offers readers highly actionable and practical information to improve their lives. All of this information is offered for free to site visitors.

Based on the idea of reciprocity, your blog makes site visitors more likely to feel obligated to buy something from your site, providing you with an eventual conversion.

Example of reciprocity

One of the best examples of this Cialdini principle in action is the Brian Dean’s website, Backlinko. Dean’s website is centered on his blog, which is single-mindedly focused on giving its readers tips, advice, and suggestions on how they can be more successful webmasters and SEO analysts.

Thanks to his very informative content, regular site visitors are more likely to sign up for his (paid) training courses or contact him for consulting services.

2. Commitment: People want their beliefs to be consistent with their values.

The principle of commitment declares that humans have a deep need to be seen as consistent. As such, once we’ve publicly committed to something or someone, we’re much more likely to go through and deliver on that commitment (hence, consistency).

From a psychological perspective, this can be explained by the fact that people have aligned commitment with their self-image. Marketers, of course, have figured out how to use this second Cialdini principle to obtain greater conversion rates.

By getting site visitors to commit to something relatively small (and usually free), like a guide or whitepaper, they increase the likelihood that those site visitors will eventually see themselves as customers. That change in self-perception makes it easier to follow up with an offer for a paid product or service. (This is similar to the “foot in the door” technique.)

Example of commitment

A striking and memorable example of this Cialdini principle in action can be found on the Copyblogger website. Copyblogger is the brainchild of Brian Clark. While it’s a popular blog, it’s really a software and training organization that sells content marketing software through Copyblogger Media.

Right on the homepage, you’ll notice a big headline urging you to grab the company’s free online marketing course. Just enter your email address:

example of free offer on homepage to engage commitment principle.

Clearly, this is a form of public commitment meant to get you to see yourself as a customer of the company. It’ll raise the chances that you’ll go on to purchase one of their services.

3. Social Proof: There’s nothing like feeling validated based on what others are doing.

Cialdini defined social proof as people doing what they observe other people doing. It’s safety in numbers.

For instance, if our coworkers work late, we’re likelier to do the same. If a particular eatery is always full of people, we’re likelier to give that establishment a try.

We’re even more influenced by this principle if:

We’re unsure of ourselves.

The people we observe seem similar to us.

Social psychology is rife with experiments that illustrate this unavoidable, human phenomenon, but a classic one is this 1960s elevator experiment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZDLbbfT9_Q

Basically, whatever the majority of people do in an elevator, an individual who joins the group will copy.

For example, if the group looks to the back of the elevator, the individual will do the same, even if it looks funny. Most people refuse to think or behave independently.

Example of social proof

One of the most powerful ways to use social proof is through so-called “wisdom-of-the-crowds.” Take Modcloth. Their product pages include not just reviews but also a counter that tallies the number of site visitors who have “hearted” a particular item:

example of ecommerce product page using social proof.

A previous tactic by the retailer allowed shoppers to vote on which styles they thought should be put into production. Such styles were awarded a “Be the Buyer” badge, which doubled the rate of conversion rate compared to items with no badge.

4. Authority: You will obey me!

Ever wonder why we a tendency to obey authority figures, even if they’re objectionable and ask others to commit objectionable acts? It’s human nature!

Accessories, such as job titles (e.g. Dr.) and uniforms, infuse an air of authority, making the average person more likely to accept what that person says. You can see this in commercials that, for example, use doctors to front their ad campaigns.

Example of authority

ShoeDazzle, which specializes in women’s shoes and accessories, relies on this principle. The company was co-founded by Kim Kardashian, who also serves as one of ShoeDazzle’s chief fashion stylists.

use of celebrity to imbue authority into an advertisement.

Even though the company was also founded by serial entrepreneur Brian S. Lee and attorney Robert Shapiro, that wasn’t going to help ShoeDazzle attract conversions. For the target demographic—young women obsessed with shoes—Lee and Shapiro aren’t authority figures.

That’s why the company brought in Kardashian as a co-founder. She’s an authority figure for young women shoppers.

5. Liking: The more you like someone, the more you’ll be persuaded by them.

What does it matter if you like someone? According to Cialdini, it affects the chances of you being influenced by that individual. Welcome to Cialdini principle number five: liking. Liking is based on sharing something similar or a more superficial interest, like physical attractiveness.

This principle can be applied to conversions in the following way: A company that wants to boost conversion rates should create a great “About Us” page.

That sounds absurd, but it makes sense when you understand that a company’s “About Us” page is an opportunity to tell potential buyers about the similarities between its staff and site visitors. Since similarity is a key building block of liking, an effective “About Us” page is vital.

Let’s take a look at a case study.

Example of liking

This case study centers on a company called PetRelocation. They help pet owners all over the world move their pets from country to country.

The company’s “About Us” page is full of staff bios, and every bio emphasizes not only the staff’s love of dogs, but also humanizes managers and employees by including hobbies and other personal details.

example of about us page to increase liking.

The effort increased the company’s likeability, which in turn boosted the conversion rate of site visitors.

Some businesses succeed with the liking principle on a grand scale. Richard Branson’s Virgin Group is liked by millions of loyal consumers who enjoy its mobile phone service (Virgin Mobile) and airline (Virgin Atlantic), among other businesses.

6. Scarcity: When you believe something is in short supply…You want it more!

Here we are, at the end of Cialdini’s authoritative list of persuasion principles. Scarcity is the perception that products are more attractive when their availability is limited.

We’re likelier to purchase something if we’re informed that it’s the “last one” or that a “special deal” will soon expire. In short, we hate to miss out, and that fear is a powerful motivator to encourage us to act quickly.

Examples of scarcity

Scarcity is one of the most popular Cialdini principles. Companies use it over and over again to boost conversions. This is a common tactic on travel booking sites:

======================

Apocalypticism - 

===========================

Bible contradictions:

Jesus' last words

Rolling away the stone

Judas' death / money

Jesus reunion with disciples

Day before death 

Death - before or after passover?

Jesus to destroy the temple?

------------------------ Religious traditions abhor vacuums.

Doubt Traditions. Disciples doubted he was raised even though he was right in front of them. Jesus spent 40 days giving many proofs that he was raised from the dead (Acts 1-3).

Zombie Invasion - tombs broke open , bodies of many raised to life (at crucifixion), appeared to many people (after resurrection).

Jesus didn't hit the Jewish idea of Messiah despite the "proof" in the old testament. No Jews thought the passages referred to the messiah. Isaiah isn't about Jesus - it was about Israel. Isaiah 49:3; Neither is virgin birth etc. Post Hoc. Even Messiah means anointed one. Like David. King. Military leader, political leader. 

Crucifixion's as a Curse - Deuteronomy; Galatians.

Apostles didn't believe in / preach the resurrection. (other than Paul)

Acts of the apostles doesn't talk about acts of the apostles (other than Peter and John).

Who were the robbers? Thieves not punished by crucifixion. More likely rebels or terrorists.

The later the gospel the more blame it places on the Jewish people (including non-canonical gospels).

Matthew - Pilate and Jews equally guilty

Mark - Pilate washes hands

Luke - Pilate declares him innocent 3 times; Herod declares him innocent

John - Pilate declares him innocent, returns him to the Priests who crucify him.

Textual changes - The endings of Mark - varied greatly - women feared and told no one, women told everyone etc. 

Ascension only recorded in some versions of Luke. Acts (Luke's sequel? account probably added by scribe.)

Was Jesus stab? Only in Matthew. (fulfilled - pierced for our transgression). 

Father forgive them - Luke (added later) (absent in P75)(imitation of martyrdom of Steven) (taken out to justify antisemitism?).

Alexamenos Graffito - carved wall mocking crucifixion (donkey head on Jesus). Jews accused of donkey worship - later Christians.

Calling out to Helios - Eloi, Eloi = my god, my god. (Bystanders assume he is calling to Elijah) - in other editions, they assume he is calling to Helio - sun god.

Did someone steal the body? Only Christian sources mention it.

Jesus, the shapeshifter. (the Quran denies crucifixion, death; Romans were tricked. so do many gnostic texts.) (Simon crucified instead of Jesus?)

Numerological significance of cross. Alpha = 1; Beta = 2; Tao = 300 (shape of ankh / cross). 300 men circumcized in old testament = symbol of cross.

Gospel of Peter - "My Power, My Power - you have forsaken me." (Devine part separated from human part?) (or My Strength) (euphemism for God?)

Upside down crucifixion of Peter. - in apocryphal Acts. 

The robbers names: various names in various records. 

The walking, talking cross - gospel of Peter. 

Most records were only considered theologically through most of history. Historicity was largely unimportant.

====================