DiscussMormonism.com

I'm always amazed at the lengths people will go to in justifying the behavior of their religious leaders. I once heard a former follower of Jim Jones interviewed on the radio, and she said that people only want to focus on the mass suicides. They forget all the good things Jones did for his people (presumably before he killed them).

Anyway, I'm not comparing Jim Jones to any LDS leader, but we do see this excusing of behavior, particularly for Joseph Smith. I was thinking that most people would not excuse the following behavior in anyone not named Joseph Smith:

Hiring himself out to treasure hunters, claiming he can see lost items by placing a rock in a hat.

Getting caught having sex with the hired help by an unsuspecting wife.

Promising people a spot in heaven in exchange for their teenage daughters.

Making bogus translations of an ancient document and claiming it was done through divine power.

Sending men away on church business and then taking their wives as his.

That people feel the need to defend such stuff says to me that they have abdicated their moral center and placed it in the hands of another. Whatever the prophet did was good. Who are we to judge? After all, as Pahoran will tell us, Joseph Smith was a far better man on his worst day than any of us will ever be.

The problem, Runtu, is that most of his followers did not know this stuff. And most of them don't to this day. It is the fact that I learned about it that helped push me out of the Church. I can imagine that the apologists have to fight pretty hard to not accept these facts so that they don't find themselves in the same place we are.

Runtu wrote:...
That people feel the need to defend such stuff says to me that they have abdicated their moral center
and placed it in the hands of another. Whatever the prophet did was good. Who are we to judge?
After all, as Pahoran will tell us, Joseph Smith was a far better man on his worst day than any of us will ever be.

Precisely so -- though some Mormons give away 100% of themselves in
the process; while others retain enough independence to be either hypocrites
or silent non-believers.

When a couple get married, we all naturally expect that they will "stick up"
for each other, even when one of the two is engaging in bad behavior. We
see that sort of thing all the time. Wives make excuses for their philandering
husbands -- husbands make excuses for their dishonest wives,

For converts, joining the Church is like marrying everybody in it -- but Joseph Smith
holds an all-encompassing position. To accuse him of doing wrong, is to accuse the
entire Church of doing wrong.

It's worse than just being married -- it's like having Smith crawl in under your skin,
to become a part of you -- an essential part you cannot get rid of (and cannot criticize.)

Creepy -- no?

UD

I can tell you this much. I'd never trust anybody personally or professionally whose sole existence is apparently to throw turds on somebody's synagogue. Every day.

John -- you are so full of crap in your interpretation of church history -- so willing to adopt a Van Wagoner view of the evidence with no critical thought. So unwilling to see how weak your view is on certain fronts.

rcrocket wrote:I can tell you this much. I'd never trust anybody personally or professionally whose sole existence is apparently to throw turds on somebody's synagogue. Every day.

It's a good thing you know very few of them. And, I am certain John is not one of them.

rcrocket wrote:John -- you are so full of crap in your interpretation of church history -- so willing to adopt a Van Wagoner view of the evidence with no critical thought. So unwilling to see how weak your view is on certain fronts.

So say you, but your credibility isn't exactly spotless on your pet topics, like the MMM.

Getting caught having sex with the hired help by an unsuspecting wife.

CFR

bcspace wrote:CFR

He wasn't referring to you, bc. I mean, who would believe that you could get some even by paying for it?

Kishkumen wrote:So say you, but your credibility isn't exactly spotless on your pet topics, like the MMM.

It is nearly spotless, and in particular in that topic. I have yet to see any published rebuttal to my two published pieces pointing out any flaws other than minor typos.

The only criticism Scratch ever had was to decisions in ellipsing, which Bagley never said was offensive or misleading. Scratch's analysis was purely disingenuous.

Rolly attempted an attack on the MAD board and got nowhere.

Pretty easy for you to malign someone's reputation, anonymously? No? But, I'm being repetitive.

Why don't you go over to a board discussing Judaism and throw some turds on their faith? It would give you the same satisfaction wouldn't it? You and John are in very very good company. If there is a God in heaven, surely he would condemn this particular behavior. Anonymous attacks upon faith weak people hold so dear. At least when God told Joseph Smith all the other professors of religion had become corrupt (quoting Isaiah), He used his own name.

rcrocket wrote:It is nearly spotless, and in particular in that topic. I have yet to see any published rebuttal to my two published pieces pointing out any flaws other than minor typos.

Pretty easy for you to malign someone's reputation, anonymously? No?

Certainly not here, where we all watched you getting taken to task on some of your faulty arguments. Go ahead and focus on the "published" part of it, if that makes you feel better. Doesn't make you right.

And by the way, I am not maligning you, jack ass.

bcspace wrote:

Getting caught having sex with the hired help by an unsuspecting wife.

CFR

It exists. In anti-Mormon newspapers. The very sort of authority Van Wagoner and to some extent Compton found compelling. I know. I ran some of the sources to ground and was just plain shocked at the scholarship.