DiscussMormonism.com

Gazelam,


Thanks for the Merriam Webster version.

The problem for you is that their is no reason to suspect that your godhead is the true one over the 1000s of others that had existed in the minds and hearts of humanity through the years.

You reason to believe in your version of some god based on the words of an adulterous, child molesting conman is spurious indeed.

Not an adulterer? Did he not have relations with other men's wives while he was married to another?

Not a child molester? What do you call a 30 something year old guy who takes a 14 year old girl to his bed?

Not a conman? Well, what reason do you have to believe his multiple versions of the first vision?

Tell me, what "reason" do you have in believing in such a man or in his godhead figure at all?

LCD2YOU wrote:Gazelam,


Thanks for the Merriam Webster version.

The problem for you is that their is no reason to suspect that your godhead is the true one over the 1000s of others that had existed in the minds and hearts of humanity through the years.

You reason to believe in your version of some god based on the words of an adulterous, child molesting conman is spurious indeed.

Not an adulterer? Did he not have relations with other men's wives while he was married to another?

Not a child molester? What do you call a 30 something year old guy who takes a 14 year old girl to his bed?

Not a conman? Well, what reason do you have to believe his multiple versions of the first vision?

Tell me, what "reason" do you have in believing in such a man or in his godhead figure at all?

This thread was intended for the Celestial forum - not the Telestial. However, this nastiness is definitely Telestial worthy.

moksha wrote:

LCD2YOU wrote:Gazelam,


Thanks for the Merriam Webster version.

The problem for you is that their is no reason to suspect that your godhead is the true one over the 1000s of others that had existed in the minds and hearts of humanity through the years.

You reason to believe in your version of some god based on the words of an adulterous, child molesting conman is spurious indeed.

Not an adulterer? Did he not have relations with other men's wives while he was married to another?

Not a child molester? What do you call a 30 something year old guy who takes a 14 year old girl to his bed?

Not a conman? Well, what reason do you have to believe his multiple versions of the first vision?

Tell me, what "reason" do you have in believing in such a man or in his godhead figure at all?

This thread was intended for the Celestial forum - not the Telestial. However, this nastiness is definitely Telestial worthy.

Hardly. You wanted to say that faith can promote reason and wanted it protected. That is hypocritical of you.

The thing is, you said my post is nasty enough for Telestial. My post was not meant to be nasty, it is matter of fact. Who did I attack? I pointed out a few of Smith's more interesting habits. Are you saying those are incorrect?

What did I say that is incorrect? Please point that out.

Liz - Telestial? If so, isn't Gazelum's posting of the dictionary meaning of reason essentially saying to me, I'm a moron? If you're going to slap me down for what I said above, fine.

Just keep it on the same playing field. Move Gazelum's comments here as well.

Better yet, stop taking Moshka's word that what I wrote was nasty and realize it was matter of fact.

Your call.