Who Cares?

[_selek]

Bulldinky. All churches have a tawdy past. The baptist church? yes, The methodist church? yes. The catholic church? yes etc etc etc. And lest we forget it were the protestants that were burning down Mormon homes. Where were their preachers preaching love?

Again you write nonsense. What rotten fruit is the lds church yielding?

The old "Your church is just as bad as my church" defense. Will Mormons ever figure out that this doesn't help their position?

[_stemelbow]

I got it from your comment, wherein you quoted me and then pontificated about people complaining. Are you saying that your comments were completely unrelated to the quote you cited from me? If so, why did you quote me?

I was just giving ideas generally. Some complaints about the church offered by critics are understandable and some are not. When they are not, I often wonder why they are complaining. It had nothing to do with you personally. Just a general comment about complaints.

[_stemelbow]

I never said he was just a treasure seeker. I expressed an opinion that he was not as honest as the average person, based of course on facts from his treasure seeking days to when he was murdered.

I was granting your point for argument's sake. So I was assuming for the sake of argument that not only was he a treasure seeker but that's all he did was a kid. Such a thing doesn't really mean he was a bad person in my estimation. I only saw your comments justifying your claim that he was less then average in goodness, whatever that means, based on his being a treasure seeker. I think I was being charitable to your argument. Oh well.

Plenty today(unfortunately) see Hitler as a great and good man. I could go on and on. Also I am not suggesting that Joseph was as bad as I think Hitler was. So I think I am being very honest.

Hitler has nothing to do with this. I am merely suggesting it would be wise to be open to the opposing view, given that your view is largely a result of bias, just as other views.

[_stemelbow]

Bias plays an enormous role in how one views the evidence and the conclusions they come up with. It doesn't help the Church that so many who are biased in favor of the Church can eventually change their beliefs regarding some of it's claims.

Then again, if helping the church is at issue here, it does help the church when those who are biased against it change their views. It happens both ways. Quantified? I don't think it matters, but I don't' know which is a bigger group.

[_sock puppet]

I never said he was just a treasure seeker. I expressed an opinion that he was not as honest as the average person, based of course on facts from his treasure seeking days to when he was murdered.

I was granting your point for argument's sake.

Hey, ton lover,

Try out his argument for more than just argument's sake. It feels good not to have to deny reason and reasonable assessments of historical fact. Indeed, it feels liberating.

[_Themis]

I was granting your point for argument's sake. So I was assuming for the sake of argument that not only was he a treasure seeker but that's all he did was a kid. Such a thing doesn't really mean he was a bad person in my estimation. I only saw your comments justifying your claim that he was less then average in goodness, whatever that means, based on his being a treasure seeker. I think I was being charitable to your argument. Oh well.

The whole idea is that he was involved in less then honest activities at a young age, so I do think many other would have been a better choice if God wanted to choose a mouth piece. I don't think he was super evil.

Hitler has nothing to do with this. I am merely suggesting it would be wise to be open to the opposing view, given that your view is largely a result of bias, just as other views.

Hitler has everything to do with your poor argument. It's a great example to your idea that plenty of peopl can know all the available evidence and still see Hitler or Joseph as good men.

Then again, if helping the church is at issue here, it does help the church when those who are biased against it change their views. It happens both ways. Quantified? I don't think it matters, but I don't' know which is a bigger group.

I have never meet and only heard a few people who know the church's not so faith promoting history and evidence who have joined it(I am sure there are a few). I have meet many members who have stopped believing. I know many many converts, and almost none of them know most of the information, and they generally were not very biased against the church.

[_stemelbow]

The whole idea is that he was involved in less then honest activities at a young age, so I do think many other would have been a better choice if God wanted to choose a mouth piece. I don't think he was super evil.

How honest were you at a young age? Just curious. I don't think the one very biased account of him looking for treasure as paid and requested by Stowl is the best piece of evidence to support your assumption here. But for the sake of argument, I still don't htink it matters. At a young age, if he was dishonest, it hardly means that God would reject him as a mouth piece. Its God's choice not yours.

Hitler has everything to do with your poor argument. It's a great example to your idea that plenty of peopl can know all the available evidence and still see Hitler or Joseph as good men.

Not really. As i said, my argument was not that Joseph Smith could be right because people still believe him to be a prophet. It only has to do with the idea that even if Joseph Smith was as bad as some here claim he was, it does not mean he was not a prophet. Hitler could have been a prophet too, but that really isn't a question brought up here. your attempt to draw that comparison is sheer sensationalizing and off-topic.

I have never meet and only heard a few people who know the church's not so faith promoting history and evidence who have joined it(I am sure there are a few). I have meet many members who have stopped believing. I know many many converts, and almost none of them know most of the information, and they generally were not very biased against the church.

Well great...then it is expedient we use your anecdotal data as the rule then ( i mean that sarcastically, just for fun).