Are we enemies?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

There are a great many fields of knowledge, and you may indeed be an expert in one or more of them.


Wow. A concession. Amazing.

But you are not an expert in Mormon things, including but not limited to LDS history. You know practically nothing about it at all.


I never claimed to be, so I don't know where you come with this stuff.

And yet you explicitly claimed to know more about it than Plutarch does, then immediately denied that the specific kind of knowledge he questioned was even necessary.


Let Plutarch fight his own battles. He's quite capable all on his own. If and when he gives some indication of what his expertise is in Mormon history, then you can flaunt it all you want. Until then, your claim is hollow.

Do I deny that Oliver said it? No.

Was he being strictly truthful at the time? Perhaps not.

Was he right? Of course not.


Uh... Pahoran? Oliver was there; you weren't. He wrote it, expressing his feelings to his brother, and you have the chutzpah to doubt him? Well, of course you do. Without Joseph, you have nothing.

The fact remains, though that, unlike you, Oliver repented.


Oliver repented of what he was excommunicated for, which was not for expressing his dismay over the dirty little affair. Oliver was excommunicated for his problems with authority, not for his problems with plural marriage.

What is "plain" here is that everyone who knew more about the Fanny Alger case than you do reached rather different conclusions about it.


Oh Pahoran. That is such a pile of horse manure! William Law, John Bennett, multiple others were all there, and they reached the same conclusion Oliver did! Are you so ignorant of church history that you missed the whole Nauvoo Expositor episode? Of course you aren't. You are ignoring it though.

Can you document this claim, or is it merely the dishonest ad hoc rationalisation it appears to be? As in, did Joseph ever say anything equivalent to "anytime I speak from the pulpit, I speak as God's mouthpiece?"


As far as any of the Saints at the time were concerned, every single time he stood at the pulpit or acted in his capacity as President of the church, he spoke as God's mouthpiece. It's only been in the last decade that we've seen the apologists come up with the "speaking as a man" escape clause.

Even if that is the case--and I do not concede that it is--it does NOT justify your evil and malicious accusation that he "lied in the name of the Lord."

Did you really think that I, of all people, would fall for it?


I never thought you were stupid, Pahoran. I may have to revise my thoughts about that though. Perhaps a more accurate descriptor would be "intentionally blind".

Thank you for providing evidence in support of the fact that this was a plural marriage, not a "dirty lil affair" as some dirty lil minds prefer to assume.


More accurately, a "dirty lil affair" until the oh-so-convenient revelation to make it all appear legit.


A great many events have taken place without witnesses, collaboration or supporting evidence. Does that mean they didn't happen?


Please name those revelations. I'm not the least bit interested in "events". We're talking revelations from God, not some random event you fabricate out of your own mind. This is Joseph we're talking about, and his ever-so-active imagination.

A malicious and deliberately dishonest comparison. As you know, there is indeed no record of any revelation regarding the Priesthood ban. As you also know, there is a revelation regarding Plural Marriage: namely, Doctrine and Covenants Section 132. You are therefore blatantly lying when you claim that it "never was received."


A fabricated revelation, written on the spur of the moment while under pressure to cover his extramarital peccadillos, with no heavenly messengers, no witnesses of any heavenly intervention, no hearing of God's voice... Sorry, Pahoran. You're going to have to do better than that.

There are few sure facts in history, "Harmony," but here is one: whatever the source of Joseph's revelations, at least he believed that they were from God; and he at all times acted on them on that basis and no other.


You don't know that. And that is certainly not a fact of history. His claims are history; the veracity of his claim has never been verified.

Just as only the very filthiest of minds--and that would include yours--leap to the untenable conclusion that Plural Marriage was just an excuse for him to give rein to his libido.


It is the only explanation that makes sense, given the parameters of the verifiable facts in evidence. And Oliver was in a position to know. You aren't.

[Your own experience in getting caught up in lies is clearly distorting your ability to understand Joseph.


I understand Joseph very well. You, on the other hand, want to put him on a pedestal and make him into something he wasn't. I much prefer his human weaknesses than your ficticious facade.

But you have to resort to that disgusting bit of subterfuge, because you cannot produce a single instance where Joseph invoked the name of God in support of a false assertion.


Every single time he spoke in public, he spoke as the president and prophet of the LDS church... God's mouthpiece. So when he lied, God lied.

Which is what "lying in the name of the Lord" actually means. It does not mean "lying while in his employ," which is the only way your mendacious word game actually works.


sorry... no more time.
_wenglund
_Emeritus
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 7:25 pm

Re: Are we enemies?

Post by _wenglund »

MormonMendacity wrote:
wenglund wrote:To be quite honest and frank, your portending to be the rescuer of victims is but a guise for your own controlling nature...


To be equally as honest and frank, your analysis indicates your poor reading and comprehension skills. Lord help the souls you psycho-babelize!


Enjoy the self-induced fog.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-
_MormonMendacity
_Emeritus
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 12:56 am

Re: Are we enemies?

Post by _MormonMendacity »

wenglund wrote:Enjoy the self-induced fog.

Thanks, Wade! As soon as I can get out of the fog you're generating, I'm sure that I will.
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.
_Pahoran
_Emeritus
Posts: 1296
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 2:20 am

Post by _Pahoran »

harmony wrote:Uh... Pahoran? Oliver was there; you weren't. He wrote it, expressing his feelings to his brother, and you have the chutzpah to doubt him? Well, of course you do. Without Joseph, you have nothing.

Your mind-reading is as useless as always.

The fact remains, though that, unlike you, Oliver repented.

Oliver repented of what he was excommunicated for, which was not for expressing his dismay over the dirty little affair. Oliver was excommunicated for his problems with authority, not for his problems with plural marriage.

Actually his alleged "dismay over" Joseph's plural marriage was exactly a symptom of "his problems with authority."

Here's a little hint for you, Discord: Oliver authored the declaration on marriage which you quoted, twice, in your previous post. He did so in response to what he later called an "affair."

Can you connect the dots, or do I need to spell it out for you?

What is "plain" here is that everyone who knew more about the Fanny Alger case than you do reached rather different conclusions about it.

Oh Pahoran. That is such a pile of horse manure! William Law, John Bennett, multiple others were all there, and they reached the same conclusion Oliver did!

What? Bennett and the Law brothers weren't on the scene until years later in Nauvoo. Did you really not know that?

Are you so ignorant of church history that you missed the whole Nauvoo Expositor episode? Of course you aren't. You are ignoring it though.

So does anyone who's actually read that example of yellow journalism.

Can you document this claim, or is it merely the dishonest ad hoc rationalisation it appears to be? As in, did Joseph ever say anything equivalent to "anytime I speak from the pulpit, I speak as God's mouthpiece?"

As far as any of the Saints at the time were concerned, every single time he stood at the pulpit or acted in his capacity as President of the church, he spoke as God's mouthpiece. It's only been in the last decade that we've seen the apologists come up with the "speaking as a man" escape clause.

That's as accurate a claim as any you've ever made; it was Joseph who gave us that "escape clause," as you so dishonestly try to dismiss it.

But thank you for admitting that you can't document that Joseph ever claimed to be continuously speaking for God. Very well, can you document the (considerably lesser) claim that "any of the Saints at the time" thought that? Because I can provide a contemporary and hostile source that says the opposite.

Thank you for providing evidence in support of the fact that this was a plural marriage, not a "dirty lil affair" as some dirty lil minds prefer to assume.

More accurately, a "dirty lil affair" until the oh-so-convenient revelation to make it all appear legit.

Such is your dirty lil accusation. Unfortunately it only reflects upon your dirty lil mind.

A great many events have taken place without witnesses, collaboration or supporting evidence. Does that mean they didn't happen?

Please name those revelations. I'm not the least bit interested in "events". We're talking revelations from God, not some random event you fabricate out of your own mind. This is Joseph we're talking about, and his ever-so-active imagination.

Off the very top of my head: Section 4. I only mention that one because I happen to have it memorised. In fact the majority of Joseph's revelations were received without a visible manifestation witnessed by others.

There you are, Discord--unlimited license to cherry-pick. Just what you've always wanted!

A malicious and deliberately dishonest comparison. As you know, there is indeed no record of any revelation regarding the Priesthood ban. As you also know, there is a revelation regarding Plural Marriage: namely, Doctrine and Covenants Section 132. You are therefore blatantly lying when you claim that it "never was received."

A fabricated revelation, written on the spur of the moment while under pressure to cover his extramarital peccadillos,

According to whom? A notorious liar with a filthy mind.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR VILE ACCUSATION, DISCORD?

Because absent such evidence, the accusation is evidence of nothing but the vileness of the one making it.

with no heavenly messengers, no witnesses of any heavenly intervention, no hearing of God's voice... Sorry, Pahoran. You're going to have to do better than that.

I don't have to do anything, Discord. You are the accuser; you bear the burden of proof.

And you'd better make sure you get it right.

There are few sure facts in history, "Harmony," but here is one: whatever the source of Joseph's revelations, at least he believed that they were from God; and he at all times acted on them on that basis and no other.

You don't know that. And that is certainly not a fact of history. His claims are history; the veracity of his claim has never been verified.

Quit side-stepping. We're not talking about veracity, but his sincerity, which has been demonstrated far more convincingly than yours has or ever will be.

Just as only the very filthiest of minds--and that would include yours--leap to the untenable conclusion that Plural Marriage was just an excuse for him to give rein to his libido.

It is the only explanation that makes sense, given the parameters of the verifiable facts in evidence.

No, it's the only explanation that makes sense to you, given the limitations of your utterly low and filthy mind, and your comprehensively vast ignorance of LDS history.

And Oliver was in a position to know. You aren't.

See above.

[Your own experience in getting caught up in lies is clearly distorting your ability to understand Joseph.

I understand Joseph very well.

You may rest assured that he us quite beyond your comprehension, given that you simply cannot grasp the concept of anyone actually being motivated by religious belief.

You, on the other hand, want to put him on a pedestal and make him into something he wasn't. I much prefer his human weaknesses than your ficticious facade.

Said the cast-iron pot to the stainless steel kettle.

But you have to resort to that disgusting bit of subterfuge, because you cannot produce a single instance where Joseph invoked the name of God in support of a false assertion.

Every single time he spoke in public, he spoke as the president and prophet of the LDS church... God's mouthpiece. So when he lied, God lied.

Actually you lied--when you wrote that, that is.

sorry... no more time.

What a loss.

Regards,
Pahoran
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Post by _Jason Bourne »

Oh Pahoran. That is such a pile of horse manure! William Law, John Bennett, multiple others were all there, and they reached the same conclusion Oliver did! Are you so ignorant of church history that you missed the whole Nauvoo Expositor episode? Of course you aren't. You are ignoring it though.


William Law and John Bennett were not members of the Church till 8 or more years after the Fanny Alger incident. Bennett was not opposed to plural marriage at all but turned against the Church and Joseph in 1841 or 1842 when his unauthorized abuse of the practice was exposed. Pleading that Bennet concluded any thing awful about polygamy is silly as he was quite the despicable despot. Law may have been honestly dismayed and became dissaffected over polygamy. What he knew about Fanny is not clear but more likely then not he may not have been totally aware of her.

Jason
Post Reply