The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

[_beastie]

Now THAT'S praise I live to hear!!

[_Paul Osborne]

Now THAT'S praise I live to hear!!

The stage is set. Everybody back on!



Paul O

[_dblagent007]

Well, this thread is a bit disappointing. We finally have some apologists willing to do substance and what happens? They get their butts kicked.

[_Gadianton Plumber]

Well, this thread is a bit disappointing. We finally have some apologists willing to do substance and what happens? They get their butts kicked.

It's not their fault they are defending the indefensible.

[_why me]

Emma lied to her own children her entire life about Joseph Smith's polygamy. Why in the world you think she wouldn't lie about other things is beyond me.

I think she was just one of millions of stupid women who loved their men too much to stand up for themselves, or vice versa.

But, aside from the very real possibility that Emma lied, given her history, there are other possibilities. The sometimes contradictory descriptions of the plates makes me wonder of different props were used, depending on the circumstance. I don't think we can ever know the answer to this, but I think the contradictory descriptions make all the descriptions suspect.

It has been established that Emma was no fan of the Nauvoo Joseph and his polygamy. And yes, she lied to her son but her son forgave her. However, that does not establish that she would lie about the plates and be a fraudster or teach her children from a book of lies. That would be a leap.

There is nothing to my logic that shows emma wavering in her belief in the Book of Mormon. As far as different props being used I don't think that this would be possible. The possibility for success would be slight. Who would make the props? And where?

Here is the point: If emma was in on the fraud, the critics can not feel sorry for her about polygamy and her reaction to it. She would be guilty as a fraudster and deserve what she got. And I see nothing in her makeup that would make her just one more stupid woman who loved their man too much. That would be a stretch.

But here is your scenerio: Emma knew the fraud. She put up with polygamy because she loved her man. She was just a stupid woman.

But we need to remember that she witnessed Joseph Smith put his head in a hat to translate the plates. What prop was used for the Book of Mormon? Was it the same prop that Emma orginally felt? Or did Joseph Smith make a different prop? And then did Joseph Smith make a different prop for the 11 witnesses? But if all were fraudsters why use a prop at all?

Or was everybody that Joseph Smith recruited at that time just stupid?

[Guest]

Well, this thread is a bit disappointing. We finally have some apologists willing to do substance and what happens? They get their butts kicked.

It's not their fault they are defending the indefensible.

I think that the critics need to get their story straight. Critics are all over the place describing the process of the Book of Mormon. Not only do we have Joseph Smith writing the book, but finding time to make various props to make the 'fraud' work. Now of course we have his family, such as mom and dad around at time. And then we have brothers and sisters mulling around too. No one saw Joseph Smith making a prop. Or if they did, then we must consider them all in on the fraud. The fraudster list just continues to grow. We now have all the brothers and sisters in on the fraud.

When we go back and read just what critics are saying we have more stories or contradictory theories than sand on the beach. And so, can critics now say that emma was in on the fraud and as such we can no longer feel sorry for her about polygamy and section 132? I say this because on critic boards I can usually read about a poor Emma.

[_why me]

Very good, why me. I agree. This supports what I was saying a few days ago.

It just goes to show that reading various accounts from different people about what they saw is subject to personal interpretation and consequently, grave error (whether it favors the church's truth claims or not).

So what are we left with? Well, we know that there's this church that makes certain claims today. We can test those claims against logic and reason in our own everyday lives. If, based on logic and reason, you come to the conclusion that it could not possibly be what it claims to be, do the accounts of people who wrote things 200 years ago really matter?

I never left the church due to its dubious history. I never had to go that far. Pretending that it somehow helps or hinders what we have today is simply letting yourself be distracted by a sideshow.

What we are left with are many theories by critics about the Book of Mormon and of course, some of the theories contradict each other. We are also now left with a stupid emma who was in on the fraud but stayed with her husband when he became a polygamist and gave her a 'phony' revelation in section 132.

We are also left with Joseph Smith being an expert prop maker making a different prop for Emma than for John Whitmer and the other 7 witnesses. Where the poor guy found all the time to do this is beyond me and not been seen making the props is beyond me more unless of course, he never made any props but just had 14 fellow fraudsters in on the fraud.

It certainly is confusing but when critics have more theories than sand on a beach, it will get confusing.

[_Some Schmo]

It certainly is confusing but when critics have more theories than sand on a beach, it will get confusing.

I agree that you're confused by critics, but not for the stated reasons.

There is no disagreement that the Book of Mormon is a fake, or that the church is not what it claims it is. Critics may have different hypotheses about how it all came about, but on those two significant points, I would say there is complete agreement.

[_why me]

It certainly is confusing but when critics have more theories than sand on a beach, it will get confusing.

I agree that you're confused by critics, but not for the stated reasons.

There is no disagreement that the Book of Mormon is a fake, or that the church is not what it claims it is. Critics may have different hypotheses about how it all came about, but on those two significant points, I would say there is complete agreement.

Let me put it this way. I have seen critics agree with theories that would contradict their previous statements. And that is the problem. It comes from desperation to grasp at any idea that is negative toward the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith or any other thing LDS. I have seen this when I posted briefly on the postmo site. As I told them years ago, all critic theories can not be true since these theories can contradict each other. One must go with one theory and hope for the best.

[_AlmaBound]

One must go with one theory and hope for the best.

Not necessarily.

Who says there has to be a theory in the first place?