Mormons should be more worried about going to Hell than Atheists

[Dr Moore]

How is it presentism when (a) Joseph hid his polygamy, (b) destroyed a newspaper press over an expose of polygamy, and (c) the Mormons received continuous antagonism over polygamy?

Sounds like today’s “presentism” is closer to the way people viewed polygamy back then too.

Those guilty of actual presentism are Mopologists looking to hide behind the years and invent new explanations to protect current leaders even if those explanations do not accord with historical context or real events.

[MG 2.0]

That’s what happens when God is taken out of the picture by nonbelievers.

No, it's what happens when your arguments suck.

God is still very much in the picture, as far as I'm concerned. She's just not the type of God who would do the kinds of things you suggest she'd do.
.

Again, another variety of presentism. Making god in your own image.

One might assume that God is the perfect moral agent. What He does and has done throughout history doesn’t always seem to dovetail exactly with our own. Presentists then have a cow.

In the case of this thread folks are making Joseph into something he may not have been. When evidence is given that shows ambiguity when it comes to having sex with married women, the conversation is steered somewhere else. When one thing is said and it is then misrepresented as saying something else, that also steers the conversation into the false narrative realm.

Bizzaro world of the critics. They want to sit in the driver’s seat and steer, but then they go off course as though no one is in the passenger seat watching.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Why don’t you actually just answer a question instead of playing games? Was marrying other men’s wives wrong?

- Doc

[Lem]

How is it presentism when (a) Joseph hid his polygamy, (b) destroyed a newspaper press over an expose of polygamy, and (c) the Mormons received continuous antagonism over polygamy?

Sounds like today’s “presentism” is closer to the way people viewed polygamy back then too.

Those guilty of actual presentism are Mopologists looking to hide behind the years and invent new explanations to protect current leaders even if those explanations do not accord with historical context or real events.

That's what's really bizarre about this presentism argument. Do those using it really think people in Joseph Smith’s time didn’t know bigamy was illegal? Or didn’t know marrying women already married to other people was illegal? Or that marrying ANYONE else while already married was immoral? Or that doing it 30-40 times was immoral, unethical AND illegal? Or that 30-something married man threatening teenagers wasn't coercive? Of course they did. As you point out, we have records of multiple people in Smith's time objecting.

Presentism is a failure of an argument.

[MG 2.0]

Why don’t you actually just answer a question instead of playing games? Was marrying other men’s wives wrong?

I’ve already commented on this.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

…marrying ANYONE else while already married [is] immortal…

Sorry, I thought this was kind of funny. At least for you to say it.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Why don’t you actually just answer a question instead of playing games? Was marrying other men’s wives wrong?

I’ve already commented on this.

Regards,
MG

I didn’t ask for a commentary. Answer the question put to you without equivocation.

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

…marrying ANYONE else while already married [is] immortal…

…that doing it 30-40 times was immoral…

That’s weird theology. Immoral immortality.

Cut and pasting to make something out of nothing is kind of fun, isn’t it?

Regards,
MG

[drumdude]

That’s weird theology. Immoral immortality.

Cut and pasting to make something out of nothing is kind of fun, isn’t it?

Regards,
MG

It’s clear you don’t take any criticism of Joe seriously, this just proves he could have done anything like murdered hundreds of babies in front of you and you would still have an excuse for it.

The God you worship is evil and I hope you’re prepared to accept the consequences of worshiping him when you depart this life. You’ll have a lot to answer for if there’s an actual moral judge on the other side.

[Rivendale]

No, it's what happens when your arguments suck.

God is still very much in the picture, as far as I'm concerned. She's just not the type of God who would do the kinds of things you suggest she'd do.
.

Again, another variety of presentism. Making god in your own image.

One might assume that God is the perfect moral agent. What He does and has done throughout history doesn’t always seem to dovetail exactly with our own. Presentists then have a cow.

In the case of this thread folks are making Joseph into something he may not have been. When evidence is given that shows ambiguity when it comes to having sex with married women, the conversation is steered somewhere else. When one thing is said and it is then misrepresented as saying something else, that also steers the conversation into the false narrative realm.

Bizzaro world of the critics. They want to sit in the driver’s seat and steer, but then they go off course as though no one is in the passenger seat watching.

Regards,
MG

Bizzaro world of the critics. They want to sit in the driver’s seat and steer, but then they go off course as though no one is in the passenger seat watching.

The problem of parallax. If both people traveling in the car look at the gas guage the passenger swears there is 1/4 of a tank and the driver swears there is 1/2 a tank. Which one is right? Polygamy didn't arise out of a vacuum. Polyandry didn't arise out of a vacuum.