Non-Celestial Posts "Dynastic Marriages-Doctrinal Quest

[_guy sajer]

A person with integrity does not act in a manner inconsistent with his or her beliefs unless acting out would be sociopathic.

A person with integrity does not lead others, either by conduct or statements, to a belief the actor does not hold.

A person with integrity is one we would admire; one who is without guile; one who does not act deceitfully.

In other words, Joseph Smith was not a man of integrity.

Edited to add: It amazes me how Bob is so quick to find the faults in others but so completely blind about the faults in his beloved Prophet.

For whatever sins Jason may have, serial philadering, seducing young girls under his care, fraudulently claiming magical powers, brazen lying, stealing other men's wives, and attempting to destroy the reputations of people who oppose him appear not to be among them.

[_rcrocket]

A person with integrity does not act in a manner inconsistent with his or her beliefs unless acting out would be sociopathic.

A person with integrity does not lead others, either by conduct or statements, to a belief the actor does not hold.

A person with integrity is one we would admire; one who is without guile; one who does not act deceitfully.

In other words, Joseph Smith was not a man of integrity.

Edited to add: It amazes me how Bob is so quick to find the faults in others but so completely blind about the faults in his beloved Prophet.

For whatever sins Jason may have, serial philadering, seducing young girls under his care, fraudulently claiming magical powers, brazen lying, stealing other men's wives, and attempting to destroy the reputations of people who oppose him appear not to be among them.

Plural marriage is, by very definition, not "serial." You're devolving into an earlier incarnation of yourself on this board.

[_Runtu]

Plural marriage is, by very definition, not "serial." You're devolving into an earlier incarnation of yourself on this board.

My reading of the record is that Joseph's practice of polygamy was in some sense "serial," in that he did not marry and then establish a household or add the new wife to his household. The nature of the marriages required him to make furtive and necessarily infrequent contact with his wives, but I don't see an effort on his part to maintain long-term relationships with the wives. He seemed to move from one to the next serially.

[_Jason Bourne]

Not withstanding your condescension I am actually quite well read on this topic. Well enough to know your spin is exactly that. Henry entered into plural marriage based on the idea that what was good for the goose was good enough for him. Brigham had already claimed Zina for his own before Henry went on this mission. Henry took a wife perhaps in a moment of hoping for revenge. Goodness knows the poor fellow had been a dupe to Joesph and Brigham over this issue. I am sure when he learned his wife had moved in with Brigham it broke his heart. It is sad indeed that you are to hard to consider that just perhaps Henry was a victim here.

Jason, with all due respect, how can you reach these conclusions and yet continue to hold such persons as "God's chosen?"

I mean, what more evidence do you need that this is all man-made? How obvious does it have to be?

What institution truly borne of God, and what men truly called of God, engage in this type of dispicable behavior?

Because Jason is one of the following:

1. A long-time troll, pretending to be a faithful member of the Church but who is not. If this is the case, he is dishonest.

2. A person who lives a large segment of his life (I call, his "Physical Face Amoung Friends Life") inconsistent with his real beliefs. He leads others to believe what he does not. If this is the case, he is dishonest, and I really don't care the rationale for doing so.

3. Gee, there are no other options, are there? He should be like Peter Danzig, and walk and talk the walk, rather than skulk.

Well I still believe a lot of what the Church teaches and stands for even though some of what I used to believe I do not any longer. One thing that seems clear is that prophets are very different than what I was taught. Of course the apologists believe that.

To Guy, I can still hold on the what I think are the very good things that came through some men that at times did things that I think were bad or wrong.

I certainly have done bad things too. According to Bob I am among the worst, a hypocrite and a liar. And in some ways he is correct. I wish I I was not such a wimp and maybe could take a stand for some of the things I would like to see changed in the LDS Church. WHo knows, maybe someday you will see my name in the papers too.

Now, Bob, I asked you politely in a PM to stop badgering me about this. I hope you are decent enough to honor that. I also apologized for attacking you in anger and saying meant things about you.

Thanks

[_sunstoned]

A person with integrity does not act in a manner inconsistent with his or her beliefs unless acting out would be sociopathic.

A person with integrity does not lead others, either by conduct or statements, to a belief the actor does not hold.

A person with integrity is one we would admire; one who is without guile; one who does not act deceitfully.

In other words, Joseph Smith was not a man of integrity.

Edited to add: It amazes me how Bob is so quick to find the faults in others but so completely blind about the faults in his beloved Prophet.

For whatever sins Jason may have, serial philadering, seducing young girls under his care, fraudulently claiming magical powers, brazen lying, stealing other men's wives, and attempting to destroy the reputations of people who oppose him appear not to be among them.

Word.

[_beastie]

I suspect THIS is what bob is calling “stalking”.

Quote:)(bob)
Saying evil anonymous things about the church while living a double life on Sundays is hypocritical and cowardly. I just can't see any justification for it. Plus, you occasionally use your anonymous bully pulpit to defame people with real names -- myself included.

my response
Do you just program your computer to spit out these comments, or do you actually have to sit there and type it out each time?

Let me save you some time. Just save a word doc copy of your comments here, and whenever you feel the urge to post on this board, just copy and paste.

Or you could also use skippy's summary:

blahblahblahanonymousevilblahblahblah

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... c&start=21

Bob has his own “unique” definition of stalking, obviously.

But poor Bob doesn’t understand my question, so I will ask again, this time providing painfully explicit explanation.

My original question:

do your ecclesiastic leaders know that you harass active members of the church on the internet, while those members try to work through challenges while still remaining active and retaining some form of belief?

by the way, this isn't a rhetorical question. I really want to know if they that you have ordained yourself some sort of "judge" in internet israel, and actively harass members you judge unworthy.

I also want to see where you harass believers (who are 'worthy') for saying anonymous malicious things about exmormons.

Painfully explicit expansion:

Bob regularly harasses certain active LDS, notably Harmony and Jason, accusing them of dishonesty and a lack of integrity. Both Harmony and Jason have demonstrated that they do, indeed, believe in some aspects of Mormonism. They are active in church and have talked to each of their respective church leaders about their position regarding belief. They are obviously trying to hold on to what good they see in Mormonism, while feeling free to criticize or question some other positions. Of course, internet Mormons would have us believe that Mormonism is a Big Tent, and it’s not required to believe every teaching within the LDS church to find a place therein. Those of us who experienced Mormonism first hand know there’s a big fat WINK behind that assurance, and people like Bob occasionally help us skeptics out by providing evidence that Mormonism isn’t a Big Tent after all.

There is no way Bob can dispute that he harasses active members of the church who believe SOME aspects of Mormonism, and are just struggling to deal with the rest.

So my question is simple.

Bob, do your leaders know that you harass active members of the church in this manner? Do they know that many of your comments seem designed to PUSH wavering believers completely out the door of Mormonism altogether, by insinuating or outright stating that they lack integrity to continue as they are?

The second question is this: Bob demonizes people who post anonymously in a critical fashion about the church or the leaders of the church. Indeed, his position is that this is a hallmark of “sociopathy”.

Yet one does not have to visit a place like MAD long to see that anonymous believers also engage in criticizing exbelievers or other critics. So I’d like to know if he harasses them for their anonymous posting, as well.

And in a related question, does he condemn the anonymous early LDS writers who slandered and libeled critics of the church as well as anyone who revealed polygamy during Joseph Smith' life?

[_beastie]

unless Bob is the troll trying to make normal Mormons look weird.

Double word.

[_rcrocket]

So my question is simple.

Bob, do your leaders know that you harass active members of the church in this manner? Do they know that many of your comments seem designed to PUSH wavering believers completely out the door of Mormonism altogether, by insinuating or outright stating that they lack integrity to continue as they are?

The second question is this: Bob demonizes people who post anonymously in a critical fashion about the church or the leaders of the church. Indeed, his position is that this is a hallmark of “sociopathy”.

Yet one does not have to visit a place like MAD long to see that anonymous believers also engage in criticizing exbelievers or other critics. So I’d like to know if he harasses them for their anonymous posting, as well.

And in a related question, does he condemn the anonymous early LDS writers who slandered and libeled critics of the church as well as anyone who revealed polygamy during Joseph Smith' life?

No, your question is not simple. It is four questions, each compound. And, really, why should I respond to your posts? You make vulgar references to my wife and little children. You are so thinly read on almost all topics and so utterly humorless, I just don't get anything from your posts. Please don't be offended if I just ignore you.

[_beastie]

No, your question is not simple. It is four questions, each compound. And, really, why should I respond to your posts? You make vulgar references to my wife and little children. You are so thinly read on almost all topics and so utterly humorless, I just don't get anything from your posts. Please don't be offended if I just ignore you.

Oh, for heaven's sake. I made a bad joke saying your wife must have laid back and thought of England to have sex with you and conceive your children, and to you, that is "vulgar references to your wife and little children". I even APOLOGIZED for that bad joke immediately.

You rely on laughable sources like Cyrus Gordon and argue that the Maya had no written language, and then accuse me of being "thinly read". I totally decimated your favorite horse reference, C. Ray. And now you won't answer very simple questions.

I am shocked, I tell you, just shocked that you refuse to answer questions that reveal what a complete and utter hypocrite you are - and a hypocrite without a conscience. Someone pass me the smelling salts.

You, bob, harass active members of the church who are doing their best to hold on what they perceive to be good in Mormonism, while not being able to accept other portions. You attempt to harass them out of the church. I have zero doubt that you would never, never, never reveal this information to your ecclesiastic leaders.

We can only hope you're a troll attempting to make believers look bad.

[_Jersey Girl]

No, your question is not simple. It is four questions, each compound. And, really, why should I respond to your posts? You make vulgar references to my wife and little children. You are so thinly read on almost all topics and so utterly humorless, I just don't get anything from your posts. Please don't be offended if I just ignore you.

Oh, for heaven's sake. I made a bad joke saying your wife must have laid back and thought of England to have sex with you and conceive your children, and to you, that is "vulgar references to your wife and little children". I even APOLOGIZED for that bad joke immediately.

You rely on laughable sources like Cyrus Gordon and argue that the Maya had no written language, and then accuse me of being "thinly read". I totally decimated your favorite horse reference, C. Ray. And now you won't answer very simple questions.

I am shocked, I tell you, just shocked that you refuse to answer questions that reveal what a complete and utter hypocrite you are - and a hypocrite without a conscience. Someone pass me the smelling salts.

You, bob, harass active members of the church who are doing their best to hold on what they perceive to be good in Mormonism, while not being able to accept other portions. You attempt to harass them out of the church. I have zero doubt that you would never, never, never reveal this information to your ecclesiastic leaders.

We can only hope you're a troll attempting to make believers look bad.

What on earth is wrong with thinking of England? It's not like it's Newark or anything.
;-)