DiscussMormonism.com

ldsfaqs wrote:1. Nothing about that is false, they were sealings, not Polygamy. My not mentioning other issues and facts in that particular statement does not equal me not stating things at other times.

2. Polygamy is living with and having a relationship with more than one wife, and legally married.
All of Joseph's Polyandry marriages were Eternal Only Sealings, not time, thus they can't be classified as Polygamy.
If Joseph actually did in fact have sex with some of his wives, they "might" be able to be classifed as Polygamy, because they were legally married/sealed, and some of those marriages were for "Time" which could mean intimate relations were possible, but they would be more "daliances" rather than actual polygamy. But, they could quality. However, since I don't find "certainty" yet on whether he did have relations with any, I'm not going to call it anything other than what the evidence shows, Sealings only.

3. Not having any public statement from some of the Husbands or otherwise doesn't somehow mean Joseph was taking advantage of Married mens wives. Clearly his doing this with whatever support of the husbands shows that most of the marriages at least were only Sealings, and not in fact for his perverted fun and pleasure as anti's claim.

Now I understand why you went back to the church - your word-bending skills were not being used to their full potential and you wanted to bring your mental gymnastics skills back to world class level. You succeeded, now come back to reality.

DarkHelmet wrote:

ldsfaqs wrote:20-30 Google search pages..... Which means I read or skimmed about every link in those pages, which was many 1,000's of pages.
As to being a "scholar".... Where-else am I the average person to search for the necessary evidences as a non-Governmental employee without high clearance in the right government departments or military? Huh Mr. Smarty-pants???

1. I did not "search for what I wanted to believe", I searched for the actual truth because I found "inconsistency's" between news sources, little nuggets of truth popping up, for example the interviews I said I listened to. Those were not BELIEFS, those were first person testimony's Mr. Smarty Pants.

2. If you know how Google works, it works with "what's popular"..... not with what's TRUE.
Thus yes, sometimes a person has to actually dig to find the actual truth of things.

WMD's being in Iraq wasn't some fantasy, they were there, so there had to be reasons why most of the media was saying they weren't, and when I heard first person testimony's of military personel in the know, that provided further evidence of a problem.
So, trying to accuse me of simply trying to "support my beliefs", is ignorance.

Second, it's further ignorant because...... since when did the actual truth and facts become "supporting ones beliefs'???
You are clearly clueless of what you just said, as if that is somehow a "bad thing", to work hard enough to eliminate the propaganda out there, to find the actual truth. Classic.

My work ethic is what caused me to first join the church over other religions, and to then later become anti-mormon and anti-religion (to a degree) and to then restudy religion and the church, resolve my issues, and then rejoin it forever.
The anti-mormon work ethic is to quit, think you know it all, and be an ignorant bigot.

Well, I am glad you figured out the "truth" about WMDs, and I will concede that you probably know more about the WMD issue than anyone on this board, certainly more than me because I don't care and I don't suffer from Dunning-Kruger. But on the issue of Mormon topics on this board you are lecturing people who are as versed as you if not more. To pretend you are the only person here who has spent time researching Mormon topics is delusional. I guarantee I've read through more than 30-40 pages of google hits on just about every Mormon issue. I've devoured everything Mormon related, and I still don't think I know enough about every topic. If you read just about any exmormon story, you will see the same thing. When a TBM has a crisis of faith, they dig into the issues for years. It's all you can think about. You know what the penalty is for us if we're wrong? You don't think we were conditioned from a young age to fear Satan leading us astray and ending up in outer darkness? I guarantee every exmormon checked and double checked every resource possible before having the confidence to leave the church. It takes time and a lot of effort to break through the conditioning.

The anti-mormon work ethic is to quit, think you know it all, and be an ignorant bigot.

Do you really think lazy, incomplete research can lead a strong TBM to have the confidence to comfortably mock the church the way we do on this board? Do you know what a TBM risks losing when they choose to walk away from the church? And really who are the ones that quit when the facts don't support their side? Who are the ones that say things like, "I don't care because I know the church is true" and "I'm just going to put that issue on the shelf for now."

Given that I've been an anti-mormon, well learned and experienced at the time even, for I had been studying religion since age 7 and especially the church since age 8.
I "thought" I knew it all also in my late teens and early 20's when I became anti-mormon and anti-religion (which by the way is the most common age group when most leave religions)
But, I also knew the bigotry in anti-mormonism, so myself starting to do it, and I also knew that I really didn't "read" LDS scholarship as much as I should have to really know the truth. So, I put away my bigoted judgments, and then a couple of years later, I was ready to learn again, and did..... the Church was still the only one that could be true, I directly compared anti-mormonism with LDS scholarship, and being objective it was easy to see who was lying about every issue, and I studied the main issues I had problems with, resolve them, and then I knew the church for sure was true.

Anyway, I'm well aware of what anti-mormons do including the more learned ones.
But I also know how bigotry makes you think you "know it all" already, that you don't have to objectively compare the facts of an issue anymore, you know it all already. Me for example, I still study other religions and things, even though I know them to be false, because I'm objective and fair, not bigoted.

The anti-mormon becomes a bigot, thus they are no longer objective and fair even if some of them still study Mormon subjects, they've already made up their minds, and because of their bigotry, they only see what they want to see, not the actual truth and facts.
Take grindale..... He's a well learned anti-mormon, spends a lot of time trying to degrade the church.
And that's his problem..... He study's LDS subjects to try to find anything that he can use or minipulate to degrade the church.
He's not spending his time simply trying to understand, to see truth and right. So, he is blind. Anti-mormons become blind, because they have become servants of the evil one, the one who perverts and distorts truth.

I've been doing this a long time..... Sometimes and issue comes along for example, or is an old issue, and I provide clear unequivacle facts that simply cannot be disputed, that clearly debunk an anti-mormon position, but without fail, the anti-mormon doesn't see it.
I'm not talking about the issues that have some "play" in opinion (like whether Joseph was a pedophile) but clear issues.
The anti-mormon simply isn't able to see beyond what they already believe on a subject.

Let me give you two examples..... on this very forum.

I've made clear over and over again two things.
1. "Blacks" were not denied the Priesthood, only those of African Lineage were, no matter the color, that blacks of the Islands, some other country, some parts of Central/South America were given the Priesthood.

Yet, anti-mormons here still state "blacks", are not clear in their language, and even claim I'm lying simply because they haven't seen the evidence of the churches historical policy in this.

2. The fact that Church owned "Businesses" built the Mall in Salt Lake, not the Church, not Tithing, etc.
Yet ant's here still claim the church and still claim Tithing, even though I've corrected them dozens of times.
I have a question is the worst offender of this.

So, anti-mormons can't see or be told anything that is the actual truth, they will continue to believe what they want, even if you show them direct documents.
I've been doing this on many forums with many kinds of anti-mormons. The religious ones are the most brainwashed in their anti-mormon bigotry, because it's their religious leaders and scholars telling them the lies and bigotry, so they are especially invested emotionally.
The Atheist anti-mormon is a "little" more pliable, but like with I have a question..... you can't tell them anything. They are still anti-mormon, and their truth is the only truth, not the actual truth.

I also can't tell you how many times an anti-mormon claims something, and I link to them an article that directly addresses their claim showing the actual truth, and they abosolutely refuse to study it. Again, they know the truth already, and can't be told different.

Me, I've almost ready every single page and every single anti-mormon website that exists out there, and still do, even though I know the truth of the Church and my views on every issue.
I've read most major anti-mormon books.....
But I also still study LDS scholarship and books.
Anti-mormons hardly do any of this...... especially after they "know" already.

Just the other day, I started posting at CARM some.
A anti-mormon there completely refused to read a FAIR article which clearly and directly debunked her anti-mormon view.
Yet, she wouldn't read it. It happens at least once a week something that I can just refer to an article.
I don't remember the last time an anti-mormon even on this forum actually said they would read an article from LDS Scholarship, and then respond about it.....

When was the last time anti-mormons here addressed anything other than a blog post by a Mormon?
Never.....

ldsfaqs wrote: When was the last time anti-mormons here addressed anything other than a blog post by a Mormon?
Never.....

Unbelievable. This is a joke right?

ldsfaqs wrote:
Let me give you two examples..... on this very forum.

I've made clear over and over again two things.
1. "Blacks" were not denied the Priesthood, only those of African Lineage were, no matter the color, that blacks of the Islands, some other country, some parts of Central/South America were given the Priesthood.

Yet, anti-mormons here still state "blacks", are not clear in their language, and even claim I'm lying simply because they haven't seen the evidence of the churches historical policy in this.

Sorry, but this argument is a loser. I realize there aren't any winning arguments for apologists, but there has to be something better than this. You know all of the infamous quotes, so I'm not going to rehash them here. The leaders were racist against blacks. They used the terms black and african interchangeably. But lets pretend the ban wasn't necessarily skin color, but just against those of african descent. Is that really any better? Are you really going to convince anyone that the priesthood ban wasn't racist with this argument?

2. The fact that Church owned "Businesses" built the Mall in Salt Lake, not the Church, not Tithing, etc.
Yet ant's here still claim the church and still claim Tithing, even though I've corrected them dozens of times.
I have a question is the worst offender of this.

What are your references for this claim? It's my understanding that the church hasn't made their financial records public? For someone who pridefully boasts about how much research he does, it appears to me you are simply trusting the church is telling the truth on this one. Nobody knows which account the money came from for the mall. But that's not even the issue. The issue many people have is if it's appropriate for the church to spend over $1 billion on a shopping mall? Who cares which cost center the funds were charged to? And this wasn't an issue with a few bitter anti-mormons. It was pretty controversial among a lot of people, both members and non-members. You can tell people it shouldn't offend them, but it won't change how they feel.

The religious ones are the most brainwashed in their anti-mormon bigotry, because it's their religious leaders and scholars telling them the lies and bigotry, so they are especially invested emotionally.

That's ironic, coming from a guy who quotes from FAIR and other apologists and doesn't have an original thought on any of the issues.

I also can't tell you how many times an anti-mormon claims something, and I link to them an article that directly addresses their claim showing the actual truth, and they abosolutely refuse to study it.

Just the other day, I started posting at CARM some.
A anti-mormon there completely refused to read a FAIR article which clearly and directly debunked her anti-mormon view.
Yet, she wouldn't read it. It happens at least once a week something that I can just refer to an article.
I don't remember the last time an anti-mormon even on this forum actually said they would read an article from LDS Scholarship, and then respond about it.....

When was the last time anti-mormons here addressed anything other than a blog post by a Mormon?
Never.....

You misunderstand. This board is dedicated to refuting and mocking FAIR and other apologists. The problem you're experiencing is that every FAIR article you link to contains the same tired old argument that has already been thoroughly refuted and mocked. It's not that they won't read it, it's that they already have and are thoroughly unimpressed. At some point don't you stop and think "Gee, nobody is impressed with these amazing FAIR articles. I wonder why?" instead of just assuming we haven't read them. Do you really think we haven't read and laughed at the catalyst theory for the Book of Abraham? In your mind is that an example of something that we should be impressed with? You expect us to read that and say "Gee, that makes sense." That's insulting to people who are honestly seeking truth. If you want to throw that crap out there, don't be offended when people laugh and dismiss it without a second thought.

cwald wrote:

ldsfaqs wrote: When was the last time anti-mormons here addressed anything other than a blog post by a Mormon?
Never.....

Unbelievable. This is a joke right?

Probably. If an exmormon created a parody of an internet apologist, it still wouldn't be as funny as ldsfaqs.

DarkHelmet wrote:If an exmormon created a parody of an internet apologist, it still wouldn't be as funny as ldsfaqs.

No. Nobody can be as funny as ldsfaqs and the same type apologists.

He is simple-hearted - and I like that types.
Unfortunately, he is simpleton, and - as a forever teacher - I don't like that types.

DarkHelmet wrote:

ldsfaqs wrote:
2. The fact that Church owned "Businesses" built the Mall in Salt Lake, not the Church, not Tithing, etc.
Yet ant's here still claim the church and still claim Tithing, even though I've corrected them dozens of times.

What are your references for this claim? It's my understanding that the church hasn't made their financial records public? For someone who pridefully boasts about how much research he does, it appears to me you are simply trusting the church is telling the truth on this one. Nobody knows which account the money came from for the mall. But that's not even the issue. The issue many people have is if it's appropriate for the church to spend over $1 billion on a shopping mall? Who cares which cost center the funds were charged to?

I'm wondering if faqs can tell us how the Church initially acquired whatever assets it used to eventually convert into funds for the financing of City Creek.

Unless there have been a good number of pots of gold resting at the butt end of rainbows in SLC, the Church has used tithing dollars as the initial resource to leverage and amass diversified investments.

faq's argument makes as much sense as if I gave him, say, a state benefits card, which he then used to buy baby formula, and then traded the formula for cigars... yet tried to convince me afterwards that he did not use his benefits card funds to end up with a box of cigars.

schreech wrote:

ldsfaqs wrote:
I don't know how apologists like me...

That. is. so. cute... that you consider yourself an apologist.

That's not fair. Almost everything LDSfaqs says sounds apologetic in nature.

canpakes wrote:I'm wondering if faqs can tell us how the Church initially acquired whatever assets it used to eventually convert into funds for the financing of City Creek.

Unless there have been a good number of pots of gold resting at the butt end of rainbows in Salt Lake City, the Church has used tithing dollars as the initial resource to leverage and amass diversified investments.

faq's argument makes as much sense as if I gave him, say, a state benefits card, which he then used to buy baby formula, and then traded the formula for cigars... yet tried to convince me afterwards that he did not use his benefits card funds to end up with a box of cigars.

I've said this many times before.....

1. Members of the Church have been "donating" to the Church while alive, in Wills, etc. since it's beginning, OUTSIDE of Tithing.
The church thus started buying various businesses with those funds that can support the mission of the Church, including it's latter day mission, but are still businesses.
So, you asked "how".... That's how.

Tithing was always designated for the Churches daily "spiritual" needs and operations, not outside things.

2. Utterly false.... It happened exactly as I've stated above. Call that a "good number of pots of gold resting at the butt end of rainbows" if you want, but that's what happened. Not saying of course "some" Tithing at some point especially at the beginning of the church that might have done something other than the long designated rules of Tithing usage, but this has been the general policy of the church from the beginning, to not use Tithing for anything other than the "Work" of the Lord.

3. And you are disabled as usual.

ldsfaqs wrote:... (got it? THREE PERIOD) you are disabled as usual.

you are disabled as usual


by the way is his comment above on topic? Or is it a blatant derailment?
Ugo Perego? DNA?
"Ugo Perego and the Case of the Missing DNA" ???


Your turn, Shades!