AGREE? "As a Licensed Mental Health Counselor, I would bet my entire life savings that Joseph Smith had Narcissistic Personality Disorder."

Comments

• Correction noted.
  
  Never-the-less if you need the opinion of an ACTIVE member of the LdS Church on this matter you can consult with Robert D. Anderson, M.D., who came to the same conclusion in his classic book, "Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon"
  (see http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560851252/rpcman )
  
  And LdS Forensic Pscyhiastrist, C. Jesse Groesbeck (you may remember him as part of the team of forensic psychiatrists who did the assessment of Dan Lafferty after he was arrested) also an active and believing Mormon, agreed with Dr. Anderson's assessment.
  (listen to https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/shop/products/?product_id=1337&category=3 )
  
  And, finally, RLDS/CoC Psychologist William D. Morain, M.D. came to exactly the same conclusion as Dr. Anderson and Dr. Groesbeck in his book "The Sword of Laban: Joseph Smith, Jr., and the Dissociated Mind".
  (see http://www.amazon.com/Sword-Laban-Joseph-Smith-Dissociated/dp/0880488646/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1296545442&sr=8-1 )
  
  Therefore, we can completely throw out Mr. Cauther's assessment and still have the same assessment of two Latter-day Saints and an RLDS/CoC Latter Day Saint to work with.
  
  So now that we've got that settled, how do you answer the question being posed?
  
  Thank you.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 31st, 2011

Comments

• Actually, as usual, you would lose, at least on the atheist part. I can tell you, based on previous interactions here on Answerbag, that Mr IT is some type of evangelical Christian.

  • Report
  

  by AB is an asylum run by the inmates, ciao! on January 30th, 2011

• Thank you Hominan. That is clearly stated in my profile.
  
  Neither am I a liberal or a democrat.
  
  I believe that WOTdoyoumean is upset because I had the gall and audacity to challenge his thinking elsewhere on AB (here http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/10232913 in fact) so, OBVIOUSLY, I'm now the worst kind of person - which in his world is a liberal, democrat, atheist.
  
  And, of course, goodness forbid he should actually answer the question being asked - that's clearly too much to ask! No, it's much better to make wild assumptions and troll those who dare to challenge you to think, ponder, and consider a perspective outside of your current state of entrenchment.
  
  Here's what the Bible says about such behavior:
  "Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to air their own opinions."
  -- Proverbs 18:2

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 30th, 2011

• Yes, I generally ignore the vacuously caustic inane comments that WOT makes. In this case I felt I should say something because even though you and I are diametrically opposed on many thing we can still relate and discuss in a generally civilized manner. Plus, I don't want to have any theists counted as atheists, that could cause confusion for the spectators. ;-)

  • Report
  

  by AB is an asylum run by the inmates, ciao! on January 30th, 2011

• Darn! I thought that you all were going to make me an honorary member of the club based on Mr. Wot's recommendation!
  
  ;-)

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 30th, 2011

• And where, pray tell, does one go to get Licensed as a Certfied American?

  • Report
  

  by Moongrim on January 30th, 2011

• Apparently they're only issued to non-Democrat, Theist, Conservatives.
  None else apply from what I gather!
  
  Which is kinda funny because I thought that one of the great strengths of America was it's "melting pot" pluralism and tolerance of differing points-of-view.
  
  Oh well - I guess I was wrong!

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 30th, 2011

• For some reason WOT reminds me of this song.
  
  

  • Report
  

  by AB is an asylum run by the inmates, ciao! on January 31st, 2011

• Well . . . maybe, but I still don't think that we should kick him in the knee no matter how tempting it might be!
  
  ;-)

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 31st, 2011

• I agree, and you know that I never advocate violence.
  
  As to the licensing issue, the only licensed American I have even known were canids, they generally have a licensing requirement everywhere. Hmmmm., what do you think Mr IT? Could it be we are dealing with a canid that has Internet access?

  • Report
  

  by AB is an asylum run by the inmates, ciao! on January 31st, 2011

• LOL! Well as much as the word picture of a canid with Internet access does tickle the imagination I'm more inclined that we're just dealing with an ignorant, closed minded, opinionated, jingoistic, American bigot.
  
  ;-)

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 31st, 2011

• Considering how canids identify each other Hominan, you might be on to something...

  • Report
  

  by Moongrim on January 31st, 2011

• ROFLOL!
  100 "Likes" for Moongrim's comment.
  
  Nice! VERY nice!

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 31st, 2011

• ROTFLMAO!

  • Report
  

  by AB is an asylum run by the inmates, ciao! on January 31st, 2011

• Thank you for your answer.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 31st, 2011

Comments

• And how exactly does launching a fallacious Ad-Hominem on the source of the quote in any way answer the question?
  
  I would remind you that Ad-Hominem abusive arguments are by their nature ALWAYS fallacious.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 30th, 2011

• For one who is known to speak in the third person, I am amazed that your second paragraph didn't open with "We would you...". :-) and Amen.

  • Report
  

  by ChuckExAnon on January 30th, 2011

• So let's see here . . . you get "called" on your fallacious use of Ad-Hominem Abusive tactics and you reply with yet another one?
  
  What's up with that?
  
  Your responses thus far have been fallacious because you did NOT present any counter evidence, reasoning, logic, or other legitimate arguments - you simply launched into "ad-hominem abusive" attacks on first Mr. Cauthers, then me.
  
  From the Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary:
  ad hominem
  1: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect
  2: marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made
  
  To quote from the Wikipedia article on Ad-hominem tactics:
  "An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "to the man"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2] ...
  
  Ad hominem abusive
  Ad hominem abusive usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate their argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."
  ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem )
  
  Again, for emphasis:
  "The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy."
  
  "This [Ad-hominem Abusive] tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions."

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 30th, 2011

• You're all into yourself, aren't you? In fact, I'm searching for a response you "Like". Searching...Searching...Searching. How enjoyable.
  
  Attacks? No way! I wouldn't want to quiet you for the world, which so much hungers for your great wisdom. ROFL

  • Report
  

  by ChuckExAnon on January 30th, 2011

• And the Ad-Hominems continue. Well as the Bible says so well for cases like this:
  
  
  Proverbs 26:5
  Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes.
  
  Proverbs 10:8
  The wise in heart accept commands, but a chattering fool comes to ruin.
  
  Proverbs 14:16
  The wise fear the LORD and shun evil, but a fool is hotheaded and yet feels secure.
  
  Proverbs 15:2
  The tongue of the wise adorns knowledge, but the mouth of the fool gushes folly.
  
  Proverbs 15:14
  The discerning heart seeks knowledge, but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly.
  
  Proverbs 17:10
  A rebuke impresses a discerning person more than a hundred lashes a fool.
  
  Proverbs 17:12
  Better to meet a bear robbed of her cubs than a fool bent on folly.
  
  Proverbs 20:3
  It is to one’s honor to avoid strife, but every fool is quick to quarrel.
  
  Proverbs 27:22
  Though you grind a fool in a mortar, grinding them like grain with a pestle, you will not remove their folly from them.
  
  Proverbs 26:4
  Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him.
  
  So let me just hit this mute button here . . .

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 30th, 2011

• Ten Thumps...count 'em...TEN! I love it. Please don't stop! Us more true, real, humble Christians have no fear of the self-appointed. Gimme a little more of that ad hominem thingy. Takes me back to my 9th and 10th grade Latin classes. I'm almost as impressed with you as you are with yourself.

  • Report
  

  by ChuckExAnon on January 30th, 2011

Comments

• Thank you for your answer.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 30th, 2011

Comments

• Thank you for your answer.
  
  And good points!

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 5th, 2011

• And for the curious, here is the text that you refered to in your answer:
  
  Genesis 50:30-33 (Joseph Smith Translation)
  30 And again, a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins; and not to the bringing forth of my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them in the last days;
  
  31 Wherefore the fruit of thy loins shall write, and the fruit of the loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together unto the confounding of false doctrines, and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to a knowledge of their fathers in the latter days; and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.
  
  32 And out of weakness shall he be made strong, in that day when my work shall go forth among all my people, which shall restore them, who are of the house of Israel, in the last days.
  
  33 And that seer will I bless, and they that seek to destroy him shall be confounded; for this promise I give unto you; for I will remember you from generation to generation; and his name shall be called Joseph, and it shall be after the name of his father; and he shall be like unto you; for the thing which the Lord shall bring forth by his hand shall bring my people unto salvation.
  
  (see http://www.centerplace.org/hs/iv/iv-gen.htm )

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on February 5th, 2011

Comments

• A: Because no Licensed Mental Health professional has diagnosed them with NPD. Several have done so with Joseph Smith - and two (one LdS, one RLDS/CoC) have written novel length.books on the reasons for their diagnosis and the historical justification for it. Scores more have made published papers and/or made public statements regarding Smith's NPD. There appears to be STRONG professional consensus about Smith's NPD.
  
  If the rich body of evidence and consensus among Licensed Mental Professionals existed for the figures that you named that does for Joseph Smith's NPD, you can rest assured that I would be asking the same question about them.
  
  It doesn't.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on April 20th, 2012

Comments

• Thank you for your answer.
  
  And for those unfamiliar with "The Law of Consecration" that Moongrim is referring to:
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_consecration
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Order

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 30th, 2011

Comments

• Ed Decker? Where did THAT come from.
  There is no citation from Ed Decker in this question Glenn.

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 30th, 2011

Comments

• Good point and thank you for your answer.
  
  I would assume that your vote was, "More Disagree than Agree"? It doesn't seem to have registered (but that can be an AB bug).

  • Report
  

  by Mister IT is trying to Liahona outta here on January 31st, 2011