Blood upon the Risers: Droopy and Evil

[_Buffalo]

So far that HAS been your position when confronted with any number of inconsistent and downright offensive things Joseph said. What would Joseph have to say for you to think he wasn't a prophet, then?

Just because I don't insist that Joseph Smith's claim to being a prophet is not true because he sinned, does not mean I think he should be allowed to do anything, nor that all that he did is easily forgivable, prophet-like, nor anything of the sort.

What, specifically, would Joseph have to do or say for you to reject him as a prophet?

[_Darth J]

It's what happens when you think you're going to come to this board and rebuke the critics like Nephi using the Force to rebuke Laman and Lemuel

The strawmen just keep coming.

So you didn't even think you were going to do that?

Since this is a thread about moral perspective, let's eliminate this straw man once and for all.

Stemelbow---

Is D&C 121 a canonized part of the Standard Works?

____ Yes

____ No

Could Joseph Smith repeatedly violate the conditions for plural marriage given as a commandment in D&C 132 and still retain his priesthood authority?

____ Yes

____ No

Joseph Smith could have forfeited his priesthood authority if he had __________________________.

[_Buffalo]

That's long been your position, Stem. I'm disappointed in the quality of your posts, lately. It seems you're more interested in bickering than in honest debate. What happened?

The same thing that happened to Simon Belmont. It's what happens when you think you're going to come to this board and rebuke the critics like Nephi using the Force to rebuke Laman and Lemuel



except that all you've got is "Nuh-uh!!!" and increasing the noise to signal ratio.

I think you've gotten to the crux of the matter here.

[_Darth J]

Stemelbow---

Does the LDS Church teach that the essential steps of repentance are confessing a sin and forsaking it?

____ Yes

____ No

The best evidence that Joseph Smith confessed and forsook his violations of the conditions for plural marriage commanded in D&C 132 is when he:

(a) hid it from his legal wife.

(b) hid it from all but a select inner circle of his followers.

(c) lied about it in the minutes of the Nauvoo City council.

(d) lied about it in public.

(e) destroyed the printing press of a newspaper that exposed his practice of polygamy.

(f) other (please specify what the "other" is, without relying on argument from ignorance).

[_stemelbow]

Stemelbow---

Does the LDS Church teach that the essential steps of repentance are confessing a sin and forsaking it?

____ Yes

____ No

The best evidence that Joseph Smith confessed and forsook his violations of the conditions for plural marriage commanded in D&C 132 is when he:

(a) hid it from his legal wife.

(b) hid it from all but a select inner circle of his followers.

(c) lied about it in the minutes of the Nauvoo City council.

(d) lied about it in public.

(e) destroyed the printing press of a newspaper that exposed his practice of polygamy.

(f) other (please specify what the "other" is, without relying on argument from ignorance).

Sheesh, DJ, can ya ever let things go? We already discussed your ideas on this matter.

Let's try and let this thread blossom into something else shall we?

[_EAllusion]

1) "...as good an intellectual exercise as it is, irrelevant to the kind of serious discourse possible only with natural language.

There are too many shadings, nuances, coloration, and permutations of language meaning and context for such a narrow, deductively confined argument strategy."

Ahahaha!

2) Droopy is offering the classic St. Augstianian theodicy*, who was not, as best I can tell, Mormon. This theodicy is all but abandoned in theology for reasons I hope Droopy can address, but it does occasionally appear in popular fundamentalist apologetics like Ravi Zacharias' writings.

[*I'm giving a lot of favorable assumptions to get Droopy to that argument. It probably isn't accurate to label his argument this way as is. Normally, I'd just call this "fourth officer"]

[_Darth J]

Stemelbow, you said that Buffalo and I are committing a straw man fallacy when we say that you think Joseph Smith could do whatever he wanted and he would still remain a prophet in your eyes.

The way that you show that we are misrepresenting your position is by addressing what I asked.

[_Morley]

1) "...as good an intellectual exercise as it is, irrelevant to the kind of serious discourse possible only with natural language.

There are too many shadings, nuances, coloration, and permutations of language meaning and context for such a narrow, deductively confined argument strategy."

Ahahaha!

2) Droopy is offering the classic St. Augstianian theodicy, who was not, as best I can tell, Mormon. This theodicy is all but abandoned in theology for reasons I hope Droopy can address, but it does occasionally appear in popular fundamentalist apologetics like Ravi Zacharias' writings.

Gawd damn, I love you, EA.

[_stemelbow]

Stemelbow, you said that Buffalo and I are committing a straw man fallacy when we say that you think Joseph Smith could do whatever he wanted and he would still remain a prophet in your eyes.

The way that you show that we are misrepresenting your position is by addressing what I asked.

Honestly, if you're trying to define what "I think" and it disagrees with what "I think", as I've expressly said, then there is no need for your exercise. Your strawman has been exposed.

Plus, I have no interest in going on for pages, while you get hung up on every little tree, naïve to the fact that your in a forest. Nah thanks. Doesn't pique my interest today.

[_Buffalo]

What, specifically, would Joseph have to do or say for you to reject him as a prophet?

Stem, if you don't answer this question, it will be clear that the answer is "nothing.