The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Re: The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

Post by _beastie »

Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 3, p.228
But these men, like Balaam, being greedy for reward, sold us into the hands of those who loved them, for the world loves his own. I would remember William E. McLellin, who comes up to us as one of Job's comforters. God suffered such kind of beings to afflict Job—but it never entered into their hearts that Job would get out of it all. This poor man who professes to be much of a prophet, has no other dumb ass to ride but David Whitmer,2 to forbid his madness when he goes up to curse Israel; and this ass not being of the same kind as Balaam's, therefore, the angel notwithstanding appeared unto him, yet he could not penetrate his understanding sufficiently, but that he brays out cursings instead of blessings. Poor ass! Whoever lives to see it, will see him and his rider perish like those who perished in the gain-saying of Korah, or after the same condemnation. Now as for these and the rest of their company, we will not presume to say that the world loves them; but we presume to say they love the world, and we classify them in the error of Balaam, and in the gain-sayings of Korah, and with the company of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.
Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 3, p.228
Perhaps our brethren will say, because we thus write, that we are offended at these characters. If we are, it is not for a word, neither because they reproved in the gate—but because they have been the means of shedding innocent blood. Are they not murderers then at heart? Are not their consciences seared as with a hot iron! We confess that we are offended; but the Savior said. "It must needs be that offenses come, but woe unto them by whom they come." And again, "Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake; rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so persecuted they the Prophets which were before you."





Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 3, p.230
Was it for committing adultery that we were assailed? We are aware that that false slander has gone abroad, for it has been reiterated in our ears. These are falsehoods also. Renegade "Mormon" dissenters are running through the world and spreading various foul and libelous reports against us, thinking thereby to gain the friendship of the world, because they know that we are not of the world, and that the world hates us; therefore they [the world] make a tool of these fellows [the dissenters]; and by them try to do all the injury they can, and after that they hate them worse than they do us, because they find them to be base traitors and sycophants.
Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 3, p.230
Such characters God hates; we cannot love them. The world hates them, and we sometimes think that the devil ought to be ashamed of them.
Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 3, p.230
We have heard that it is reported by some, that some of us should have said, that we not only dedicated our property, but our families also to the Lord; and Satan, taking advantage of this, has perverted it into licentiousness, such as a community of wives, which is an abomination in the sight of God.
Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 3, p.230
When we consecrate our property to the Lord it is to administer to the wants of the poor and needy, for this is the law of God; it is not [p.231] for the benefit of the rich, those who have no need; and when a man consecrates or dedicates his wife and children, he does not give them to his brother, or to his neighbor, for there is no such law: for the law of God is, Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife. He that looketh upon a woman to lust after her, has committed adultery already in his heart. Now for a man to consecrate his property, wife and children, to the Lord, is nothing more nor less than to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the widow and fatherless, the sick and afflicted, and do all he can to administer to their relief in their afflictions, and for him and his house to serve the Lord. In order to do this, he and all his house must be virtuous, and must shun the very appearance of evil.
Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 3, p.231
Now if any person has represented anything otherwise than what we now write, he or she is a liar, and has represented us falsely—and this is another manner of evil which is spoken against us falsely.
Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 3, p.231
We have learned also since we have been prisoners, that many false and pernicious things, which were calculated to lead the Saints far astray and to do great injury, have been taught by Dr. Avard as coming from the Presidency, and we have reason to fear that many other designing and corrupt characters like unto himself, have been teaching many things which the Presidency never knew were being taught in the Church by anybody until after they were made prisoners. Had they known of such things they would have spurned them and their authors as they would the gates of hell. Thus we find that there have been frauds and secret abominations and evil works of darkness going on, leading the minds of the weak and unwary into confusion and distraction, and all the time palming it off upon the Presidency, while the Presidency were ignorant as well as innocent of those things which those persons were practicing in the Church in their name. Meantime the Presidency were attending to their own secular and family concerns, weighed down with sorrow, in debt, in poverty, in hunger, essaying to be fed, yet finding [i.e. supporting] themselves. They occasionally received deeds of charity, it is true; but these were inadequate to their subsistence; and because they received those deeds, they were envied and hated by those who professed to be their friends.
Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 3, p.231
But notwithstanding we thus speak, we honor the Church, when we speak of the Church as a Church, for their liberality, kindness, patience, and long suffering, and their continual kindness towards us.
Joseph Smith, History of the Church, Vol. 3, p.231
And now, brethren, we say unto you—what more can we enumerate? Is not all manner of evil of every description spoken of us falsely, yea, we say unto you falsely. We have been misrepresented and misunderstood, and belied, and the purity and integrity and uprightness of our hearts have not been known—and it is through ignorance—yea, the [p.232] very depths of ignorance is the cause of it; and not only ignorance, but on the part of some, gross wickedness and hypocrisy also; for some, by a long face and sanctimonious prayers, and very pious sermons, had power to lead the minds of the ignorant and unwary, and thereby obtain such influence that when we approached their iniquities the devil gained great advantage—would bring great trouble and sorrow upon our heads;and, in fine, we have waded through an ocean of tribulation and mean abuse, practiced upon us by the ill bred and the ignorant, such as Hinkle, Corrill, Phelps, Avard, Reed Peck, Cleminson, and various others, who are so very ignorant that they cannot appear respectable in any decent and civilized society, and whose eyes are full of adultery, and cannot cease from sin. Such characters as McLellin, John Whitmer, David Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, and Martin Harris, are too mean to mention; and we had liked to have forgotten them. Marsh and "another," whose hearts are full of corruption. whose cloak of hypocrisy was not sufficient to shield them or to hold them up in the hour of trouble, who after having escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, became again entangled and overcome—their latter end is worse than the first. But it has happened unto them according to the word of the Scripture: "The dog has returned to his vomit, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."


Note the irony of this. Joseph was angry because the church was being accused of having a “community of wives”. He insisted that the church was innocent of this crime.

This is the context in which he defamed the characters of the same men apologists here insist whose word we should take without question.

So, in the context of this particular conversation, does this sound like something a knowing fraud would do? When his fellow conspirators begin to stray from the fold, would a fraud make extreme statements about their characters in order to dissuade believers from listening to them?
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

Post by _Some Schmo »

maklelan wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:Of course, but that's not what we're talking about here. If I started something as a teenager that I continued into my adulthood, then it wouldn't be unfair to be held accountable for it, or judged by it.

But I don't accept your presumption that the church was a huge con. You're using circular reasoning here.

Um, it's only circular if you take rational thought out of the mix.

maklelan wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:Even a blind squirrel can find a nut or two. Isn't it funny how we amplify the hits and forget about the misses?

I haven't seen any misses yet that invalidate his hits. I just see the accusation that there are perceived misses, and so the hits are pure luck.

You haven't seen any misses! (Funny, I didn’t know you were there). Well, that couldn't possibly mean they were already forgotten, or went undocumented, could it? It just means they never existed, is that it? Well, that's rock solid. I'm convinced.

maklelan wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:First of all, I think it's funny that you're calling what I'm saying "a rationalization" given what you just tried to explain away, but ok.

"Explain away"? I explained why your theory is uninformed.

Uninformed by what standards? Mormon mythology, or human nature?

maklelan wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:Again, if you accept that Joe thought he would be safer by confessing the scam than by holding on to it, it doesn't necessarily make sense. However, I don't buy that. It's one thing to have some people turning against you. It's quite another to have everyone turn against you.

So all those times he was thrown in jail and death was imminent you still mean to assert he was thinking only of maintaining the lie? Are you even aware of how many times his life was spared only seconds from death?

You mean there were multiple times he was thrown in jail and death was imminent? Does that mean he died every time he didn't fess up? Oh wait... he was saved just seconds from death “many times?” Wow. Lucky he didn't divulge the truth then, isn't it? Sounds like he had experience with surviving even when "death was imminent."

maklelan wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:The fact is, sometimes people find themselves in situations (of their own making) where they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. When confronted with a dilemma, people choose what they think is the lesser of two evils. I imagine he knew he’d die soon no matter what he did. How long would he last as a fugitive? At least if he held on to the ruse, it might protect his family, church, and reputation.

Completely uninformed speculation.

LOL... dude, what's more uniformed, making judgments based on human nature or supernatural hearsay?

maklelan wrote:
Some Schmo wrote:If you don't think that holds water, that's up to you. Seems pretty obvious to me.

It doesn't take a lot for you to think evidence against the church "seems obvious." Your argument still only works if you don't know much about Joseph Smith's history or the history of the church.

Well, you're right about the lack of evidence needed. But then, I'm not given to believing supernatural, unverifiable hogwash. I confess.

And it's also true that I'm not a scholar on Mormon mythology. But then, I'm also not an expert on the origins of Santa Claus, but that doesn't make me think I need to study up on it before I dismiss it as fiction.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Re: The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

Post by _maklelan »

Thama wrote:He seemed to be good enough at it to earn money at it. In any case, he wasn't lacking for practice or experience on the matter.


Getting paid to do something doesn't imply accomplishment. The theory that Joseph Smith was a master con artist conflicts with the facts.

Thama wrote:Heroes to a few, perhaps, but still complicit. And vulnerable to attacks, a valid fear even if those attacks would never have materialized.


On their death beds? With their families begging them to recant? I'll reiterate: it only works if you don't know the history very well.
I like you Betty...

My blog
_Thama
_Emeritus
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:46 pm

Re: The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

Post by _Thama »

maklelan wrote:On their death beds? With their families begging them to recant? I'll reiterate: it only works if you don't know the history very well.


Talk about a "just-so" story... you could make a Lifetime movie out of it.
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains.
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Re: The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

Post by _maklelan »

Some Schmo wrote:Um, it's only circular if you take rational thought out of the mix.


That assertion alone doesn't exempt you from using legitimate logic.

Some Schmo wrote:You haven't seen any misses! (Funny, I didn’t know you were there). Well, that couldn't possibly mean they were already forgotten, or went undocumented, could it? It just means they never existed, is that it? Well, that's rock solid. I'm convinced.


I see you don't feel up to providing any examples of misses.

Some Schmo wrote:Uninformed by what standards? Mormon mythology, or human nature?


Historically uninformed. Your picture of Joseph Smith is derived almost exclusively from your own assumptions. You don't appear to know much at all about the actual history.

Some Schmo wrote:You mean there were multiple times he was thrown in jail and death was imminent?


You weren't aware of this?

Some Schmo wrote:Does that mean he died every time he didn't fess up? Oh wait... he was saved just seconds from death “many times?” Wow. Lucky he didn't divulge the truth then, isn't it? Sounds like he had experience with surviving even when "death was imminent."


And he was willing to give up his life for his lie, since exposing his lie might threaten his life? He actually stated unequivocally on multiple such occasions that that he wasn't going to die that time, but in Carthage he knew he was going to die. You need to study the history better before you base a theory on it.

Some Schmo wrote:LOL... dude, what's more uniformed, making judgments based on human nature or supernatural hearsay?


I'm basing my judgments on historical fact. You're basing your judgments on assumptions that show clear ignorance of the historical fact. Human nature is absolutely irrelevant if you have to invent the context in which you judge the human nature.

Some Schmo wrote:Well, you're right about the lack of evidence needed. But then, I'm not given to believing supernatural, unverifiable hogwash. I confess.

And it's also true that I'm not a scholar on Mormon mythology. But then, I'm also not an expert on the origins of Santa Claus, but that doesn't make me think I need to study up on it before I dismiss it as fiction.


And you seem intent on intentionally ignoring the distinction between historiography and mythology. I'm not talking about theology or ideology, I'm talking about historical facts. You've done a horrible job of obfuscation and evasion. I know that doesn't bother you (so don't waste your time explaining that to me), but if you can't even address your naïveté regarding Joseph Smith's life, you can hardly aver that your assessment of his psyche is anything but make believe.
I like you Betty...

My blog
_Calculus Crusader
_Emeritus
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 5:52 am

Re: The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

Post by _Calculus Crusader »

Martin Harris was an utter dupe who joined about a dozen religions over the course of his life, said he saw the plates with "spiritual eyes," and stated that he believed the Shakers as much or more than Joseph Smith/the Book of Mormon.

I am reminded of a suggestion to Mormons Bill Barton once made:

Stare squarely at a picture of Martin Harris and ask yourself, "I'm trusting my eternal salvation to this fool?"
Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei

(I lost access to my Milesius account, so I had to retrieve this one from the mothballs.)
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Re: The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

Post by _maklelan »

Thama wrote:Talk about a "just-so" story... you could make a Lifetime movie out of it.


This doesn't at all address my concerns. Do you intend to, or is a flippant wave of the hand sufficient for you?

EDIT: I believe your actions are actually a perfect illustration of a cynic committing to the modus operandi of us reprobate Mormons.
I like you Betty...

My blog
_Analytics
_Emeritus
Posts: 4231
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:24 pm

Re: The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

Post by _Analytics »

beastie wrote:
I've always enjoyed watching critics make up just-so stories about the Witnesses.

It really doesn't get much better than this sort of stuff.


I always enjoy watching Dan make comments like this, after having set the stage that he cannot be challenged on the comments.

See, Dan has declared he won't discuss substance with me in particular, with the heavy insinuation he won't discuss substance on the board in general. So, if I ask him to explain what stories critics have made up about the witnesses, he will cry out: but I've told you I won't engage with you!!! Why do you keep nagging me???

I think the reason he posted that was to illustrate tactic d) from the OP:

d) Claim victory regardless. If you tell a big enough lie often enough then your begin to convince the masses you have a point. No one has the time to perpetually poor over hundreds of pages of debate, and a believer will tend to take an apologist's word at face value rather than doing the research.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari
_Daniel Peterson
_Emeritus
Posts: 7173
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:56 pm

Re: The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

Post by _Daniel Peterson »

You can challenge me all you want. Who's stopping you? You're also free to whine and complain about my disinclination to spend time with you.

I simply think that the case against the Witnesses is pretty weak, transparently desperate, and ad hoc, and, having done the drill scores of times, I have no interest in running through it again.

When I choose to speak out at length on the Witnesses, it will be in the form of a book. Possibly two.

I do sometimes pay attention to such threads, though, for illustrative material and to remind me of claims that I shouldn't forget to counter.
_Thama
_Emeritus
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:46 pm

Re: The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

Post by _Thama »

maklelan wrote:This doesn't at all address my concerns. Do you intend to, or is a flippant wave of the hand sufficient for you?

EDIT: I believe your actions are actually a perfect illustration of a cynic committing to the modus operandi of us reprobate Mormons.


Given that your concerns consist of the idea that nobody would ever have reason to lie on their deathbed, conveniently complete with their family BEGGING them to confess, I'm afraid that your concerns are pretty much unaddressable. They lie almost completely outside of the realm of observed human nature.

People lie. People lie about their lies. People cover up embarrassing things that they've done, said, and bought into. Being on one's deathbed doesn't automatically transform a liar into a beacon of truth.
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!" Nothing beside remains.
Post Reply