There's something strange about 'the Mormon debater'

[_William Schryver]

Whew! I miss a few days exploring a new alternate tuning and playing around with a new 35mm adapter for my Canon XH-A1, and I missed all kinds of fun!

beastlie:

How surprising that a pretentious, flamboyant, self-flattering* man who prefers to comment on women’s cleavage than anything of substance would …

Just use this phrase as a preface to everything you ever say about me in the future. I like the way it rolls off the tongue.

And besides, you’re just jealous that I like Kimberly’s cleavage better than yours. But hey, at 50 what’s a woman to do? ;-)

You are a pretentious, verbally flamboyant, melodramatic smoked mirror.

Either that, or I’m extraordinarily transparent and unwilling to mince words for the sake of maintaining diplomatic relations.

In any case, I’m gratified that you find me so singularly loathsome.

Wow, thanks for the enlightenment regarding the nature of God! He's not a "moralist" and we'll be "surprised" to find out what he's really like …

Oh, He’s a moralist all right. Just not in the way you imagine the meaning of “moralist.” He’s the kind of moralist that recognizes the realities of the universe, and that

… what is wrong in one circumstance may be, and often is, right under another …

Of course, the trick is being sufficiently discerning to know the difference, and obedient enough to restrain oneself when you don’t.

*just for those folks who may have missed it, Will imagines himself singing to throngs of adoring crowds if he would sacrifice Mormonism, or something strange like that. Will is apparently quite interested in applause.

??? Do I? Would it benefit my musical career if I were to “sacrifice” Mormonism? It hasn’t seemed to help Talmage much.

It is odd, however, that God was cool with the idea of SOME women having more than one so-called husband, but just had to draw the line when it came to EMMA. In fact, it is often striking how often “God” sounds just like someone named Joseph Smith would sound. Perhaps that is due to the fact that God and Joseph were so close and all.

No, it’s just because Emma was a champion bitch and no one else would have her except Joseph. (Needless to say, I don’t think I’ll be checking out the new “Emma Smith as the Exemplar for All Women” movie.)

Yes, you are quite the disciple of Joseph, aren’t you? God is far more liberal and all that. Didn’t work well with Nancy, but no worry, it worked fine with others.

Poor Nancy will never know what she missed and will yet miss out on. She strikes me as intellectually rigid and physically frigid. I’m not even sure an alpha male like Joseph (or me, of course) could get a woman like Nancy to loosen up and get in touch with her entire soul. Oh, well, like you said, Nancy missed out, but there were others willing to enjoy what she was unwilling to.

You may have to restrain yourself and limit yourself to one wife in this life …

Yes, I must.

… and lord knows there must be so many groupies who would throw themselves at you if you were willing …

Well, as a matter of fact . . . there have been several over the years. But #1 has several qualities that have made it easier to choose fidelity at every tempting point along the way.

… but no worry. You’ll be compensated in the next life.

Believe me, I’m looking forward to it. As you can well imagine, there is nothing an alpha male desires quite as much as a fecund field in which to plant his seed.

But I bet that GOD will sound a lot like Will Schryver, and draw the line at the idea of your wife having more than one so-called husband.

I would submit cheerfully to the will of God in all things. Again:

… what is wrong in one circumstance may be, and often is, right under another …

I never cease to find amusement in the elastic repugnance reflex exhibited by so many exmos towards things they are certain must be wrong in “heaven”, but which they would be reluctant to condemn on earth – at least in certain circumstances. Thus, many women are intrigued by (and perhaps even jealous of) Etta Place. But these same people find it outrageous to consider the possibility that God might ever sanction such a thing in the eternities.

Well, I say, “Who knows?” In the “here and now” I obey God’s commandments concerning marital fidelity because “He said so.” But I do not believe in any such thing as “eternal moral principles.” And, insofar as God is concerned, I have a large body of evidence that would support the argument that He defines “morality” to suit His purposes at any given time.

The Big Boss rewarding his Alpha Male Dogs with access to more females.

Now that is an idea worthy of worship. Or, at least, it’s worthy of worship for some sexually frustrated man who lusts after a more “fruitful” eternity.

“Sexually frustrated”? Oh, right. In beastlie’s mind, all LDS men and women are “sexually frustrated”, “sexually repressed”, etc., etc. LDS women are institutionally programmed to consider sexuality as a “necessary evil” never to be “indulged in” for any purpose other than the procreative. If they ever accidentally allow themselves to enjoy being with their husbands – especially if it leads to (shudder!) orgasm – they should repent speedily and never let it happen again. And no faithful LDS man should ever be concerned with effecting the sexual gratification and fulfillment of his mate; he should simply place his seed in the appropriate repository (and only the appropriate repository!) with the greatest alacrity possible, and then hurry off to his next meeting.

Yes, dear beastlie, you know it all.

You live in a fantasy world. You just don’t realize it isn’t limited to the stage. You live in a fantasy world of magic rocks, and where God is some sort of mafia boss who will reward your loyalty with more poontang one day.

But apparently even that bizarre fantasy world is preferable to the reality that would otherwise face you.

I readily admit to believing in a world where there are a great many things that you would not understand, including so-called “magic rocks” and the possibility of polyamory.

But please, dear beastlie, please describe for us what you mean by “the reality that would otherwise face you.” What is this presumably terrifying “reality” of which you speak?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Would it benefit my musical career if I were to “sacrifice” Mormonism? It hasn’t seemed to help Talmage much.

Which reminds me; Tal is trying to come across as rational and intellectually honest. He's often asking questions like "if you found out of was false, would you quit?" If he were more honest he might, with equal effort, renounce the terrible pop music he created years back.

Come on. "...Cleopatra, Joan of Arc, or Aphrodite../ Duh duh duh duh duh!"

Ugh.

[_Loquacious Lurker]

No, it’s just because Emma was a champion bitch and no one else would have her except Joseph. (Needless to say, I don’t think I’ll be checking out the new “Emma Smith as the Exemplar for All Women” movie.)

Emma's a bitch? What if your wife had sex with over thirty men and didn't tell you about it? When you found out and, understandably, freaked, would she and others be within their rights to say you acted like a bit of a "bastard?" Why or why not?

[_bcspace]

You really are gone, aren't you, BC?

What's that Tal?

[_beastie]

LOL! Will, please post these thoughts of yours over on MAD for our general entertainment purposes. I beg of you. Please! Make sure you include your thoughts about God obviously having sex with Mary. And don't forget the part where you call Nancy frigid and Emma a bitch. Also don't forget the part about God's alpha males being rewarded with females. PLEASE!

[_beastie]

But please, dear beastlie, please describe for us what you mean by “the reality that would otherwise face you.” What is this presumably terrifying “reality” of which you speak?

I have no idea. But I bet you do.

by the way, how does your enthusiasm for polyamoury make your wife feel? Does she mind that you make suggestive comments to women about their breasts? Do these things make her feel secure and confident? Do these things appease any concern she may have over your potential to "wander"?

[_beastie]

You say I have a vested interest. What is it? I really want to know. Because, from my point of view, there are a host of sacrifices that must be made for me to remain faithful to the precepts of the gospel Joseph Smith taught. I would much rather tip back a Pilsner Urquel, or maybe smoke a joint or two on the weekends, or go on the road and rock the socks off adoring fans in smoky clubs, or get back the quarter of a million dollars I have paid in tithing and take my wife on a round-the-world second honeymoon for an entire year, or not have to waste hour upon hour in poorly-managed ecclesiastical meetings, or be able to tell a relief society counselor that she’s being a petty bitch for looking down her nose at another woman in the ward who isn’t quite as “orthodox” as she “ought” to be. I would no longer be mocked and ridiculed when I go among unbelieving friends or associates. I would no longer have to be associated with a religious belief system that is widely disparaged as the acme of stupidity and its adherents the most egregious examples of gullibility in our world today.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea.

What is my vested interest?

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... c&start=42

This is the post that gave me the idea that Will imagines “rocking the socks off adoring fans in smoky clubs” were he not LDS.

But I do think this post gives possible insight into what “reality” Will might otherwise face. He claims he has no vested interest, but there is a certain degree of guaranteed pain and angst involved when a middle-aged person comes to the conclusion that the church isn’t true after a lifetime of sacrifices made for it. Not only does middle age potentially bring the painful realization that one may not EVER “rock the socks off adoring fans”, but it potentially brings anger and depression if that realization is accompanied by the idea that it could have been different – and the reason the “other path” was chosen turns out to be bogus.
My boyfriend’s brother is a very talented musician. He believes that he could have had a career in music had he not chosen to marry young and have eight kids. He still believes in the church so feels that sacrifice was worthwhile, but that doesn’t stop him from needing anti-depressants.

[_William Schryver]

Beastlie:

Will, please post these thoughts of yours over on MAD for our general entertainment purposes. I beg of you. Please! Make sure you include your thoughts about God obviously having sex with Mary. And don't forget the part where you call Nancy frigid and Emma a bitch.

I have. Several times, in fact. Kate the Great (whom I unashamedly admire) and I have gone the rounds over my opinions vis-à-vis Emma Hale Smith.

Now, I must confess that part of me – a part that I repress to some extent – is empathetic towards Emma on account of the legitimate challenges she encountered in life. She dealt with everything pretty well, with the exception of prosperity. And I’m glad Joseph was willing to put up with her. I wouldn’t have. And since he’s the one who will have to go to hell to retrieve her, I can only say “better him than me.”

I doubt anyone’s going to bother with you. ;-)

Then again, who am I to judge? I’m probably a little harder on Emma – and you – than is warranted.

But not by much, I’m sure.

Also don't forget the part about God's alpha males being rewarded with females. PLEASE!

Well, I’d just be preachin’ to the choir over there, right?

by the way, how does your enthusiasm for polyamoury make your wife feel?

Did I express enthusiasm? Or is that your eisegetical conclusion?

Does she mind that you make suggestive comments to women about their breasts?

Not particularly. To quote, “I don’t care that much if you feel the need to look at the menu, just make sure you come home for dinner.”

Do these things make her feel secure and confident?

Her sense of security and confidence is not related to these things. Is yours?

Do these things appease any concern she may have over your potential to "wander"?

She has no such concerns. Are you, perhaps, projecting your own fears?

This is the post that gave me the idea that Will imagines “rocking the socks off adoring fans in smoky clubs” were he not LDS.

I rocked the socks off adoring fans in smoky clubs when I was LDS. But the appeal wore off by the end of that summer. I guess I just wasn't hungry enough for that particular kind of feast.

… there is a certain degree of guaranteed pain and angst involved when a middle-aged person comes to the conclusion that the church isn’t true after a lifetime of sacrifices made for it.

Is that how it was for you?

Not only does middle age potentially bring the painful realization that one may not EVER “rock the socks off adoring fans”, but it potentially brings anger and depression if that realization is accompanied by the idea that it could have been different – and the reason the “other path” was chosen turns out to be bogus.

That’s a lot of potentiality bursting at the seams of a mid-life crisis.

Of course, the “road not taken” always entails an obvious reality:

Oh, I kept the first for another day!
But knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

And, as I noted just recently elsewhere on this message board:

It makes much more sense to live in the present tense.

My boyfriend’s brother is a very talented musician. He believes that he could have had a career in music had he not chosen to marry young and have eight kids. He still believes in the church so feels that sacrifice was worthwhile, but that doesn’t stop him from needing anti-depressants.

As I have discovered of late, children don’t hang around forever – although, with eight, it certainly might seem like it! And, as you would no doubt attest, life does not end at 50. Right? Then I see no reason for the regret your boyfriend’s brother is allegedly suffering. Especially now that we live in a day of facilitated self-production.

I know that if I had it to do all over again, and knowing what I now know, I would not choose differently than I did.

So much for the anger and depression to which you allude.

To whom or what is yours directed, my dear? Is it hard for thee to kick against the pricks?

Or do the anti-depressants ease that urge?

[_Tal Bachman]

[I couldn't care less if Smith was gay, visited the Nauvoo whorehouse like Sarah Pratt said, had a harem of five thousand Nubian princesses, had an "open marriage". Who cares? I sure don't.

Oh, but you do! By all indications, you care very, very much.

---Obviously you can read. But can you comprehend? It doesn't seem like it. The marriages per se have never been the point here. We could just as well be talking about Smith's announcement "in the name of the Lord" that Nauvoo swampland, which he knew was malaria-infested, was "healthy", or a dozen other things.

Your habit of avoiding dealing with the point is going to make "communication" with you very difficult.

You say:

The point here is whether Mormonism - really - is what it claims to be.

But then you promptly admit that what Mormonism claims to be is inextricably tied to Joseph Smith and

… his credibility as a witness.

---Excellent, William. Indeed that is what I said. Good.

And, in the mind of Talmage Bachman, the credibility of Joseph Smith is suspect primarily because . . . he attempted to conceal, to the public, his practice of plural marriage.

---I wouldn't say "primarily", no; I only chose the plural marriage example because you yourself, as you repeatedly admit, is an example in which Smith convincingly, and evidently with great cheer, told loads of whoppers to many, many people. It's an obvious one to start with. Why should you have to exaggerate my point in order to try to rebut it?

Presumably, had Joseph Smith been completely open about his polygamy, then his credibility when it comes to gold plates and angels would be greatly enhanced. But, since he obviously dissembled when it came to his practice of marrying multiple women, then everything else becomes suspect as well.

---That Mr. Smith could lie so aggressively, so loudly, so repeatedly, so unblinkingly, to so many people, doesn't help his overall credibility, no.

This is about one case in which you concede Smith "concealed the truth" (another nice euphemism).

Well, it may be a nice euphemism, but I didn’t employ it. It is of your manufacture. The only thing I conceded – and endorsed – was Joseph Smith’s attempts to conceal his practice of plural marriage from the general public.

---Uhhhh....you're starting to sound like BCSpace. Do you want to tell us the difference between Smith "concealing his practice of plural marriage from the general public", which you concede, and Smith "concealing the truth" about his practice of plural marriage, which you deny?

I can't wait to hear this...

As for the general philosophy of “concealing truth” consistent with greater strategic aims, I will go on the record as also endorsing that practice, under certain circumstances.

---Sure - but who wouldn't, "under certain circumstances"?

Indeed, in many cases, “concealing truth” is absolutely imperative. You may be familiar with the somewhat famous World War II episode where Churchill permitted a German bombing attack to occur unopposed rather than expose the truth that the German code had been broken. In that case, Churchill’s decision condemned innocent people to death for a greater strategic end.

---Sure. I think you're referring to Coventry.

In the case of Nauvoo-era plural marriage, Joseph Smith’s secrecy also pursued a strategic end – albeit not the one that his critics assume.

---You sound deeply confused here, and are contradicting yourself. It is painful to watch.

Go back and read what you wrote. On the one hand, you fuss about me attributing to you the view that Smith concealed the truth about his "extra-marital marriages"; on the other, you openly concede he did just that, and go on to defend him for doing so!

Nevertheless, the question remains, is there a logical connection between Joseph Smith’s dissembling on the issue of his practice of plural marriage and the “truth” of his other prophetic claims? You would have us believe (despite your inconsistent protestations to the contrary) that if he “concealed the truth” about this particular religious thing, then it follows that any other of Joseph Smith’s religious claims are likewise tainted. Is this logical? Well, of course not. Except in the minds of fundamentalist exmormons.

---Here is exactly what I said. I would like to hear a specific response by you to it:

"And by the way, that Smith "concealed" his sexual/marital behaviour from others does not mean that he "lied about everything else", nor would I ever suggest something so daft. His prowess in dissembling on this issue, however, does unavoidably tell us that he was - well, good at dissembling. And this cannot help but open the door to the serious possibility that he did so just as boldly, repeatedly, and convincingly about other issues.

"So, for example, if there were evidence that some of Smith's other claims were less than truthful, his "concealment" on plural marriage suddenly would appear quite relevant, wouldn't it? This is certainly what we would say if we were investigating the truthfulness of, say, Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard's claims about Scientology's origins. So why not do so here, when trying to get at the truth?"

Well might we also argue that Winston Churchill is not to be believed when he informs us that Hitler is a bad man, or that Communism is a evil, since (were we privy to the “truth”) we know Churchill is someone who is willing to conceal the truth to achieve his ends.

---But the proposition "Hitler is a bad man" has no affinity, epistemic or otherwise, with propositions like "an angel will kill me if we don't get married and have sex", or "the sun gets its light by 'borrowing' it from a star called Kolob". This is a totally bizarre and inappropriate analogy.

As long as we keep the outrageous lengths Smith went to, to perpetuate a matter which very much was not a laughing matter to the husbands whose wives he slept with, to the women he slept with, to his own wife …

Yes, I can see that you don’t really have a problem with Joseph Smith’s sex life, per se. And, were it not immaterial to our particular discussion, I might note that I have yet to see any persuasive evidence that Joseph Smith ever consummated his eternal sealings to previously-married women.

---Well, suppose he did - what would it matter to you? I'd like an answer to that.

But the truth is, that in any investigation of Mormonism, Smith's reliability as a source about his religious experiences is an issue.
The problem, dear Talmage, is that even if Joseph Smith ran amok in Nauvoo, became a sexual predator, and lied to anyone and everyone about it, there is no logical reason to conclude that EVERYTHING he ever claimed was a lie.
[

---Very good, William. That is very true.

And by the way, that Smith "concealed" his sexual/marital behaviour from others does not mean that he "lied about everything else", nor would I ever suggest something so daft.

What? Can you not see how ridiculous you sound when you say this?

This is precisely the conclusion you desire us to reach when you point to Joseph Smith’s public dissembling on the question of plural marriage. Your argument is implicit throughout: Joseph Smith lied about his practice of polygamy, therefore the Book of Mormon, the alleged visions, the angelic ministrants – it’s also all a lie.

---Your exaggeration of my remarks so as to cast them as a blatantly invalid syllogism is understandable enough, I guess. But the truth is that their plain meaning just doesn't permit that (remember those pesky constraints...!).

My remarks in fact make a couple of simple, common sense points, which I daresay you would instantly accept if we were talking about L. Ron Hubbard, O.J. Simpson, or anyone else. They are that when a man makes extraordinary claims, especially when they are prima facie entirely out of the realm of any reliably documented human experience, his credibility (as can be gauged from available indications) is relevant to the question of whether his claims should be believed. This sounds like a tautology, and maybe it is - but it is hard to write anything so bleedingly obvious any other way.

Let's take a hypoethetical involving a genuine "child of disobedience". Let's say I tell you I just got back from Puerto Rico, and I tell you that on Friday the tenth of the month, there was a huge tidal wave on the beach down there which swept me up fifty feet high and left me stuck in a giant palm tree. And while I was there, elves appeared to me and told me you should follow me and give me some money.

You check my travel records, passport, etc., get the climatology reports, and find out that a.) I've never been to Puerto Rico, and b.), there was no tidal wave in Puerto Rico on the tenth - and there hasn't been one there in years. Witnesses also confirm that on the tenth, I spent the day at home in Alaska mowing my lawn and watching baseball. In short, you find out that I lied to you.

Logically, does this mean that every story I've ever told you is a lie? No. Does it mean that I've never communicated with elves? No. Does it mean that I've never gotten stuck in a palm tree, ever? No. It doesn't mean an infinite amount of things.

Yet next month, when I come over and tell you that I just got back from Barbados, and I saw a mermaid while I was scuba diving, and she spoke to me, etc., etc., you will be even less inclined to believe me than you were before. And thinking back on other fairly wild tales I'd told you in the past (seeing a yeti in Nepal, hanging with the Sultan of Brunei at a discotheque in Berlin, flying on the back of a giant chupacabra, etc.), you will be less inclined to believe those, too. And your reluctance to grant me credit will only increase with every exaggeration, omission, or lie you discover I've told.

Won't it?

My question to you is: why?

You state:

… wherever did we even get the idea in the first place that you could read and pray about the Book of Mormon to find out it was an authentic historical record? Nowhere but the Book of Mormon. And who brought us the Book of Mormon?

Interesting that on this very point, your apostate forbears don’t agree with your analysis. How could that be? Perhaps because they perceive the very things I do when considering these questions:

1. The Book of Mormon can be considered independent of any questions surrounding Joseph Smith.

2. The Book of Mormon has other witnesses besides Joseph Smith.

3. The Book of Mormon invites readers to obtain a witness of its truthfulness via means independent of Joseph Smith.

---What nonsense.

And by the way, if you really want to align yourself with "discerning apostate forebears" like Martin Harris, who himself claimed "never to have seen the plates, but in vision" three days after the NON-sighting in the forest, and who joined, I think, eight churches throughout his life, and who claimed to believe in one of his later religions "more than he'd ever believed in Mormonism", and who once saw Jesus running down the road "in the shape of a deer", and who revealed that NONE of the witnesses had ever literally seen the plates, go ahead. I can see why you feel such affiliation with such types; they are as free from anything even close to hard, rigorous, constrained thought as you are.

We could be talking about any other topic about which Smith engaged in "concealment", and it would raise the same questions about trustworthiness.

Again, your failure to understand that, in an adult world, there are times, places, and circumstances where it is not only appropriate, but in fact morally incumbent upon one to conceal information, is a telling commentary on your particular brand of naïveté.

---Why do you keep misrepresenting my arguments in order to attack them?

There is no sane person I know of who would disagree that sometimes deception is ethically unobjectionable, or even ethically required. That is so NOT THE POINT. It is as though there is a giant blur in the middle of all my comments where my actual point is, which you cannot see., and so you keep responding to points I'm not making. Why do you think that is, William?

His prowess in dissembling on this issue, however, does unavoidably tell us that he was - well, good at dissembling.

And?

---Yeah, exactly. That about says it all: "and?". That's just brilliant.

And this cannot help but open the door to the serious possibility that he did so just as boldly, repeatedly, and convincingly about other issues.
As I indicated above, we may likewise justifiably doubt Winston Churchill’s conclusions about Adolf Hitler.

---I bet even Wade Englund could see through this. So lame...just beyond ludicrous. There's like no Mormon on this entire board who can engage sensibly about Mormonism, that I know of. Your analogy is just....totally embarrassing.

I hope for your sake that Tarski, Beastie, Dr. Shades, and others aren't reading this thread - the people who were around when Runaway Dan Peterson himself refused to engage with ME on this very board last year.
I was around then. I followed what happened. Your characterization of the episode is, to say the least, comical.

---How so? If you indeed read that thread, show the world how unreliable I am by showing I've so comically misrepresented it. I look forward to your answer.

If you think you have the balls to venture onto the much larger stage of the MAD board, I’m sure you could be granted “Pundit” status for the purpose of engaging in intellectual discussions of these questions.

---I think the question you should be asking is whether the MAD mods have the balls to let me have the privileges any other poster has there. But anyone familiar with that board should be able to guess the answer to that.

As they've done to so many others, the moderators over there banned me from starting threads after claiming, without any good justification that I could find out about, that I was "breaking the rules". I emailed repeatedly asking which rule in particular I'd broken, promising to stop disobeying it if they'd tell me what I'd actually done - I got no answer, until finally a mod emailed me and basically, told me to stop emailing!

But since it means that much to you, why don't you email the mods over there, and if you can convince them to give me the privileges that any other poster over there has, with the proviso that I obey the rules (and that they don't ban me just because I make Peterson look like even more of a dork that he already makes himself look like), I'll go over no problem. And then you can see how your hero responds. Obviously his refusal to engage with me on the Tarski thread I mentioned wasn't enough for you.

Deal?

I thought not.

Of course, that would mean that you’d have to abandon the security of this little pond of sycophants in which you seem to have found a comfortable home of late.

---You talk a big game, William, but you do a very good impression of being just as full of crap as your hero. If you're not, prove it by convincing them to give me a full-privilege trial period. OR, even better, convince your heroes to come over here where there is virtually NO MODERATION, which would actually be more of the open contest you seem to be aching for. Show us what a bigshot you are, and do it.

And most of all, it would mean that you would have to meet the standards of decorum required there. If you don’t understand what those standards are, you should speak with The Dude, or Dan Vogel, or Brent Metcalfe, who have mastered the art of being a critic without being an asshole.

---You mean like accusing people of having the opinons they do just because of the particular sins they wanted to commit? What a fraud you are.

I would be more than willing to initiate a thread in the School of the Pundits on a question that would engage your interest, and instead of us bantering back and forth before an audience of a half dozen or so, we could take this show to a venue that sees over a thousand unique users each week.

---Like I said - be my guest. Get the paranoid mods over there to give me the same privileges others have, or at least a trial period, and then you can watch just how rational, polite, and utterly convincing all your heroes are.

I come over here and play with the piranhas quite frequently, despite the fact that believers are the distinct minority here. Are you brave enough to present your “ironclad” arguments in a highly-moderated setting that demands a dispassionate approach?

---Wake up, Willie. Bring them over if you can't get the mods to stop freaking out over there. But just one question: would it even matter to you? Once your heroes make idiots of themselves by refusing to engage...or spontaneously reinventing Mormonism just to protect it from being falsified...what then? Does it matter? Do you change your mind? Or do you just keep repeating the same things over - and over - and over again? What, actually, is the point? Judging from my conversation with you, I could make perfectly sensible points which your heroes simply refuse to acknowledge or exaggerate in order to refute - just like you're doing here - and you'd probably be announcing, "Talmage got torpedoed!". Meanwhile, all that would have happened is that I'd been talking to people who weren't even listening...not even actually engaging with my points...and starry-eyed acolytes would be peeing their pants in excitement, never even noticing their heroes can't think clearly about Mormonism.

Finally, speaking of the question of revelation, and my characterization of it as “articulated intelligence,” you wrote:

I think, rather, that the important question is the one you yourself would ask of a local Baptist who came over to your house and told you you would go to hell if you didn't leave the Mormons, and who said he knew that was true because "Jesus himself" had told him that. In other words, you and I are in the same boat when it comes to all other claimants to "clearly-articulated intelligence from heaven". If a Muslim told you that God had told him X (that you should join Islam, that we should impose sharia, etc.), you would simply wonder the same things I do know, even though you would know how real that experience was for the Muslim. Wouldn't you? I think you would, and that is only where I am now with you (I'm exactly the same as YOU, with a 100% certain Muslim, Catholic, or Moonie, who also claims to have received intelligence). Once again, in truth there is very little difference between us on this point, isn't there? It is just that you make an exception for these "transmissions" when received in your very own case.

You exhibit an extraordinarily deficient understanding of the religions to which you refer above. You see, none of them believe in nor make appeal to personal revelation. A Muslim would never tell you that God told him anything, nor a Baptist. They entirely reject Latter-day Saint notions of communication with God. Your entire paragraph, and the thoughts that surround it, is nothing but a non sequitur.

---A "non sequitir" is a statement which does not follow from what comes before. But leaving that aside, your statement is just false. While members of other religions may not use the same phraseology as Mormons do, or interpret that process of communication in the same way, Christians, including Baptists, and even Muslims, absolutely DO claim that God has communicated important information to them, and in a variety of ways. But even if that were not the case, all we would need to do for my point to still stand, is to make reference to, say, a member of the FLDS church, or maybe a psychic channeler.

The point is still the same; it doesn't go away even if it were the case that Baptists and Muslims never claimed that God communicated anything to them, in any way. So, nice try, but no cigar. The reality is that you would be asking an FLDS or a psychic channeler the same questions as I'm asking you - and you're not really answering - here; so really, we're not different in this respect, except that you grant yourself, and those who agree with you, an exemption. Don't you?

I think what is fundamentally at issue here, though, [is] … whether Mormon belief, at its core, ultimately accepts or denies the constraints imposed by empiricism and logic.

Why don’t you describe for us how you believe “Mormon belief, at its core, ultimately accepts or denies the constraints imposed by empiricism and logic.” Let’s see if you can make a compelling argument, without making an appeal to the inherent unreliability of anything Joseph Smith ever said, purely on the basis of his public pronouncements regarding the practice of plural marriage.

---See my comments below

Consider, William, that for Mormon belief to accept those constraints, is inexorably for Mormon belief to allow the possibility of the exposure of Mormonism as a fraud via empirical evidence and/or logical proof. There is no way around this; so I ask you here, in front of everyone:

Is that really what you believe? Yes or no?

What I believe is that you are incapable of understanding that “empirical evidence” and “logical proof” are language constructs used to describe a wide range of arguments – from the reproducible objective properties of gravity to the highly-debatable “evidence” of anthropogenic global warming. As such, one man’s empirical evidence is another man’s unproven theory.

That said, I discern no substantial difference between the intelligence I obtain via “supernatural” means and that which I obtain through exclusively “naturalistic” means. Truth, regardless of its origin or means of transmission, does not conflict with itself. Any perceived conflict is always incident to a flaw in the one making the observation.

---You can fuss and stomp and throw scat all you want, but my question remains, and it was raised by your very own points. Since you didn't even acknowledge it, let alone attempt to answer it, here it is again:

You deny that Mormon belief ultimately rejects the constraints of logic and empiricism. This commits you to acknowledging that there must be falsifiability tests for Mormonism. So I ask: what would such a falsifiability test look like? If, by some chance, Mormonism were not what it claimed, how would you know?

How would you know?

That’s right, Talmage. Get your good friends here to reinforce your self-image. They can be counted on, I’m sure. They’ll tell you, over and over again, that Dan Peterson and Bill Hamblin and all those FARMS-related bozos (not to mention amateurs like Will Schryver and Russ McGregor) are simply shaking in their boots at the prospect of having to engage a rhetorician of your stature.

---Well like I said, get them over here into an unmoderated ring - where MAD mods aren't giving moderating cover to your favorite fake superheroes - or get me privileges at MAD - and we'll chat. I sure don't mind. Just let me know what the actual point is, by answering my question:

Once again -

If Mormonism weren't what it claimed...how would you know?

I await your answer.

[The Stig]

TB:

The marriages per se have never been the point here. We could just as well be talking about Smith's announcement "in the name of the Lord" that Nauvoo swampland, which he knew was malaria-infested, was "healthy", or a dozen other things.

I get it. You’re convinced that Joseph Smith was a congenital liar; that he was deceiving and manipulating people throughout his entire mortal career – from duping local yokels into believing he could find buried treasure to enthralling his family with stories of ancient “Nephites” to concocting elaborate faux ancient “scripture” in order to convince gullible religionists of his status as a bona fide prophet.

In short, you would be hard pressed to identify a single sincere thing that Joseph Smith ever did. In your judgment, every step he took in life was calculated to serve shady ends – ends which invariably revolved around his insatiable appetites for pleasure, power, and wealth.

Am I on the mark here?
.
.
.
I wrote:

I have yet to see any persuasive evidence that Joseph Smith ever consummated his eternal sealings to previously-married women.

To which you replied:

… would it matter to you?

To which I respond:
No, not really. I suppose I have a soft spot in my heart for women like Etta Place and the men who love them.

It is as though there is a giant blur in the middle of all my comments where my actual point is, which you cannot see.

Why do you think that is, William?

I have noticed that you invariably end up saying the same kind of thing to your opponents in every debate in which you take part. Why do you think that is, Talmage?

I think the question you should be asking is whether the MAD mods have the balls to let me have the privileges any other poster has there. But anyone familiar with that board should be able to guess the answer to that.

As they've done to so many others, the moderators over there banned me from starting threads after claiming, without any good justification that I could find out about, that I was "breaking the rules". I emailed repeatedly asking which rule in particular I'd broken, promising to stop disobeying it if they'd tell me what I'd actually done - I got no answer, until finally a mod emailed me and basically, told me to stop emailing!

Here’s where you just can’t see past the insuperable obstacle of your own vanity.

Tal, the fact is that, unless you radically change your habits of discourse, you are the kind of person that will never be able to take part in the greater discussion on Mormonism that is occurring today in the world – whether on the MAD message board or within the pages of Sunstone and Dialogue. Simply put, you lack the necessary social graces.

Now, don’t misunderstand, I actually empathize with you to an extent. I also can tend to be a little uncouth; a little “rough around the edges” when it comes to the diplomatic arts. I’ve gotten much better in the past couple years, but I am still prone to the occasional “uncivilized” outburst. And if you want to be taken seriously in the ballroom of LDS-related discourse – especially if that ballroom contains people from both expanses of the belief spectrum – then you have to learn how to govern your passions and moderate your tendency towards exaggeration, hyperbole, and extremist pronouncements.

Let me attempt to illustrate my point: Dan Vogel, who is probably the most effective exmormon critic in current practice, was shouted down and shown the door over at RfM, whereas you and Steve Benson and others find an adoring and accepting audience for your vitriolic rants. And yet the very thing that made you popular at RfM is the thing that disqualifies you from participating in the upper echelon discussions/debates that are occurring. If you are satisfied taking the stance that believing Mormons are nothing but intellectually-challenged dupes clinging in near-desperation to the last vestiges of a thoroughly-discredited epistemological burlesque, and insist on dealing with them as though they are merely freak show caricatures worthy of nothing but mockery, then you will quickly find yourself forever banished to the fringes of the discussion.

There are a great many exmormon critics who participate regularly on the MAD board (and in the larger circles of LDS-related scholarship) who do so without making enemies of everyone with whom they come in contact. In fact, I have come to be quite fond of many of them. The poster who goes by the moniker of Alf Omega is a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Also The Dude, Don Bradley, and Uncle Dale. I’ve already mentioned Dan Vogel and Brent Metcalfe. I’ve learned much from the whole lot of them in terms of how one may converse on a subject matter that evokes feelings from the deepest recesses of our respective psyches. You could also learn from them.

I believe I understand you much better than you think. It is a small hinge upon which the door of faith swings, and I am quite cognizant of how a vantage point shift of only a few degrees can transform the entire vista before one’s eyes. But things are seldom as simplistic as you seem inclined to believe. You like to take your oversize crayons and draw bold pictures of a Joseph Smith who is an audacious and conscious deceiver and manipulator, and yet a careful examination of the available documentary evidence comes into conflict with that conclusion – something which Dan Vogel is honest enough to admit, hence his current proposition of the “pious fraud” theory, and its corollaries.

You are fond of disparaging someone like Dan Peterson with statements like:

… I make Peterson look like even more of a dork that (sic) he already makes himself look like …

And you can certainly find many people on this particular message board who will laugh and applaud every time you say things like that. The problem is that, although they certainly don’t agree with his views, few critics would dismiss Daniel Peterson as casually and flippantly as you do. Why? Because they recognize that Dan is a formidable logician and debater with an incisive mind and a broad and nuanced intellect that has garnered widespread respect for him in both his specialized field of study and in his avocation as an LDS apologist. If you truly desire to be taken seriously as a critic of Mormonism, then you will have to learn to respect your adversaries, otherwise you will, in short order, be consigned to the dustbin of long-forgotten apostates who weeped, wailed, and gnashed their teeth for a time, and then faded into obscurity.

Of course, it could be that you’re only interested in venting your spleen of the anger you feel over having wasted so much time in the grip of a cultish mentality that robbed you of a good portion of your brief and fleeting mortal existence. If so, then why not find one last thing to break, smash it to pieces as a vicarious sacrifice for Mormonism, then move on to the next chapter of your life?

On the other hand, if you are really motivated to “help” the poor souls who are still wrapped in the tentacles of the monster Joseph Smith unleashed all those years ago, then you need to seriously consider the advice I have given you above.

You talk a big game, William, but you do a very good impression of being just as full of s*** as your hero. If you're not, prove it by convincing them to give me a full-privilege trial period. OR, even better, convince your heroes to come over here where there is virtually NO MODERATION, which would actually be more of the open contest you seem to be aching for. Show us what a bigshot you are, and do it.

I’m not a “bigshot,” Tal. I’m in the same league you are.

As far as participating on the MAD board is concerned, that is entirely up to you. If you proved willing and able to employ the finesse of the critics I mentioned above, you would be more than welcome, I’m sure. In fact, I’m certain your evident language skills, relative familiarity with the subject matter, strong opinions, and moderate prominence would also qualify you to receive “Pundit” status, which would enable you to participate in discussions that are limited to a more “select” group.

Few LDS believers are willing to venture into the septic alleys here in Shadyville. Obviously, I don’t adhere to such high standards myself, but most self-respecting LDS believers are not willing to carry on a serious discussion in the same room where people like Mercury, Polygamy Porter, and others of their ilk like to hang out, do shots of Jagermeister, and play pocket pool while fantasizing about skanky women who drive rusted out TransAms and will drop to their knees for a Bud Light and a five dollar bill.

So, if you’d like to try your hand at humiliating the accomplished LDS apologists, you’re going to have to clean up your act to a considerable degree. Otherwise, you’re left with nothing but this tawdry roadhouse as a permanent venue – unless, of course, you’d like to go back to the fine folks at RfM.

Wake up, Willie. Bring them over if you can't get the mods to stop freaking out over there. But just one question: would it even matter to you? Once your heroes make idiots of themselves by refusing to engage...or spontaneously reinventing Mormonism just to protect it from being falsified...what then? Does it matter? Do you change your mind? Or do you just keep repeating the same things over - and over - and over again? What, actually, is the point? Judging from my conversation with you, I could make perfectly sensible points which your heroes simply refuse to acknowledge or exaggerate in order to refute - just like you're doing here - and you'd probably be announcing, "Talmage got torpedoed!". Meanwhile, all that would have happened is that I'd been talking to people who weren't even listening...not even actually engaging with my points...and starry-eyed acolytes would be peeing their pants in excitement, never even noticing their heroes can't think clearly about Mormonism.

This paragraph clearly illustrates your most serious obstacle. You see, my friend, you aren’t going to ever convince any of your adversaries to acknowledge that you’re right! The sooner you abandon that fantasy, the sooner you will be in a position to pursue the discussion in a rational and polite fashion. Your objective should be to present your arguments in the most persuasive manner you can, and then to let the readers be the judges. And, I guarantee you, the “most persuasive manner” will not be to treat your adversaries to a steady diet of derision, disdain, and accusations of delusion. Don’t get me wrong, you can slip in a few barbs here and there, just to keep the teapot of your frustration from exploding. But you have to do it with words carefully chosen, and a smile on your face.

A "non sequitir" is a statement which does not follow from what comes before.

That’s funny. All along I’ve thought it was a non sequitur that was a statement which does not follow from what comes before. I guess it really is true that you can learn something new every day.

Finally:

You deny that Mormon belief ultimately rejects the constraints of logic and empiricism.

What I actually have done, in the course of my several posts, is to qualify the degree to which Mormon belief accepts the constraints of logic and empiricism.

This commits you to acknowledging that there must be falsifiability tests for Mormonism.

Within the context of my belief paradigm, there are such tests. But they’re probably not the same kinds of tests that you think effectively falsify LDS beliefs.

So I ask: what would such a falsifiability test look like? If, by some chance, Mormonism were not what it claimed, how would you know?

I will consent to answer your question on the condition that you first answer a similar question from me:

If men did not really land on the moon in July of 1969, how would you know? What would such a falsifiability test look like?

I look forward to your reply.