Let's see where we can get with this

[Guest]

The "critic" in this case has NEVER provided evidence that the Church is not true.

It's hard to decide whether you are just deluding yourself so badly or just lying.

Either the critic has lied, or has repeated (knowingly or unknowlingly) a lie,

Some critics have lied, as have some apologists. Many are trying to be honest, but then I think you would have no problem saying white is black, and black is white.

or has not taken all possibilities into account.

I many of us have taken all possibilities into account and went with what is probable, instead of making up the most unlikely possibility(Implausibilities) and running with them.

For matters of faith, this last must be done if one wants to be intellectually honest. Not that one should believe until prove false, but that one cannot claim to have falsified until all avenues have been explored. It's pretty rarea s usually criticism of the Church stems from the first two.

You mean intellectually dishonest. One should never be seeking the unlikely to hold up faith. To be intellectually honest one needs to go where the evidence leads, which is not something you seem to be able to do.

[_stemelbow]

You don't have a problem with it when you play the possibility game to protect your beliefs. :)

To offer possibilities is to suggest that the disproving of the Church isn't necessarily so. You see, to some that Joseph Smith was a polygamist is proof he was not a prophet. But if God commanded Joseph Smith in his polygamy as is claimed, then there is no reason to make the connection that polygamist=not possible to be prophet.

I saw you smiled, I just thought I'd add clarification for others, like Drifting.

[_Drifting]

How does this...

To offer possibilities is to suggest that the disproving of the Church isn't necessarily so. You see, to some that Joseph Smith was a polygamist is proof he was not a prophet. But if God commanded Joseph Smith in his polygamy as is claimed, then there is no reason to make the connection that polygamist=not possible to be prophet.

I saw you smiled, I just thought I'd add clarification for others, like Drifting.

...clarify this:

I don't know. Hypotheticals are tough to answer. Its all make-believe and guessing.

[_Buffalo]

How does this...

To offer possibilities is to suggest that the disproving of the Church isn't necessarily so. You see, to some that Joseph Smith was a polygamist is proof he was not a prophet. But if God commanded Joseph Smith in his polygamy as is claimed, then there is no reason to make the connection that polygamist=not possible to be prophet.

I saw you smiled, I just thought I'd add clarification for others, like Drifting.

...clarify this:

I don't know. Hypotheticals are tough to answer. Its all make-believe and guessing.

He's got you there, Stem. You're awfully fond of hypotheticals when they suit your purposes.

[_Themis]

To offer possibilities is to suggest that the disproving of the Church isn't necessarily so.

Not when the possibilities are not plausible. I don't mind looking at all possibilities, but I notice many apologists like to bring up possibilities that can quickly be seen as not plausible. As such they should be discarded to be intellectually honest. I am not even sure why you like to do it so often since you have already admitted that your interpretation of your spiritual expereinces Trump's all other evidences. You even admit that the physical evidence does not support the truth claims of the church.

You see, to some that Joseph Smith was a polygamist is proof he was not a prophet. But if God commanded Joseph Smith in his polygamy as is claimed, then there is no reason to make the connection that polygamist=not possible to be prophet.

There may be some, or maybe very few. Most look at how he did it, and do not see behavior they like or think would be God sanctioned. Most of them are also looking at others issues like the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc to get a fuller view of the whole issue.

[_stemelbow]

He's got you there, Stem. You're awfully fond of hypotheticals when they suit your purposes.

He doesn't got me. It doesn't change the notion that hypothetical are tough to answer. They remain tough. Possibilities must be considered if attempts to disprove something are genuine.

[_stemelbow]

There may be some, or maybe very few. Most look at how he did it, and do not see behavior they like or think would be God sanctioned. Most of them are also looking at others issues like the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc to get a fuller view of the whole issue.

Of course. But one has to pass off the notion that God told Joseph Smith to practice polygamy as not plausible. of course its not plausible in that context. God is not plausible in that context.

[_Drifting]

There may be some, or maybe very few. Most look at how he did it, and do not see behavior they like or think would be God sanctioned. Most of them are also looking at others issues like the Book of Mormon, Book of Abraham, etc to get a fuller view of the whole issue.

Of course. But one has to pass off the notion that God told Joseph Smith to practice polygamy as not plausible. of course its not plausible in that context. God is not plausible in that context.

Do you believe God told Joseph Smith to practice Polygamy? Yes/No

If Yes
Do you believe it happened in:
1831 (as per header of D&C 132),
1833 (date he was sealed to Fanny Alger)
1836 (date sealing keys were restored by Elijah)
1843 (as per header of D&C 132)

If No
How do you explain D&C 132?

:-)

[_Buffalo]

He's got you there, Stem. You're awfully fond of hypotheticals when they suit your purposes.

He doesn't got me. It doesn't change the notion that hypothetical are tough to answer. They remain tough. Possibilities must be considered if attempts to disprove something are genuine.

Hypotheticals seem to come to you pretty easily when it comes to finding ways to maintain faith despite evidence to the contrary of the church's claims.

[_stemelbow]

Hypotheticals seem to come to you pretty easily when it comes to finding ways to maintain faith despite evidence to the contrary of the church's claims.

I'm calling out the notion of disproving something based on poor logic. If possibilities remain then disproof did not occur. Its merely arguing for the position of why someone doesn't believe the church.