Sock Puppet and Simon-A Comparison of Joseph Smith Knowledge

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

He did not "f*** teenage girls behind their wife's back and marry other men's wives in secret."

You, Sir. You are a liar and a deceiver. You lie. And lie. And lie. You're pathetic.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Runtu]

You, Sir. You are a liar and a deceiver. You lie. And lie. And lie. You're pathetic.

V/R
Dr. Cam

I don't know about that. I can think of three possibilities:

1. Simon is genuinely ignorant of the history.

2. Simon is, as you say, dishonest.

3. Simon has through some serious effort rationalized what Joseph did into not actually damned teenage girls behind his wife's back or secretly marrying women who were already married.

If it's the third option, I can't wait to see how he's rationalized it.

[Guest]

What you wrote earlier is to read what FAIR says, read what Gregory "under Mount Doom" Smith says, and that keeping it a secret probably saved people's lives. Of course, Joseph Smith keeping it a secret from all but a select inner circle doesn't really jive with your other dog-ate-my-homework idea that Joseph Smith was practicing polygamy to provide an example to everyone else, but I am already well aware that the apologetic narrative is a moving target.

Actually, not announcing it publicly and keeping it a secret can be two vastly different things. I do not believe Joseph Smith kept it a secret, in other words he would have shown or explained it to anyone who wanted to know. That he did not announce it from the pulpit almost assuredly saved many lives.

That must be why in the Nauvoo city council meetings to decide what to do about the Nauvoo Expositor, Hyrum Smith insisted that plural marriage was not being practiced.

People practicing civil disobedience are defying the law for social change. See, e.g., Gandhi; Martin Luther King, Jr. They do not f*** teenage girls behind their wife's back and marry other men's wives in secret as if this is somehow bringing down unjust laws and governments.

Joseph Smith simply received a commandment from God that temporarily overrode the 12th article of faith. Similar events have happened before, where God temporarily overrides a commandment (Nephi and Laban's head chopping for example). He did not "f*** teenage girls behind their wife's back and marry other men's wives in secret."

God flying by the seat of his pants so that Joseph Smith can do whatever he wants is irrelevant to this ludicrous idea about civil disobedience. And it really is not a matter of opinion that Joseph Smith screwed teenage girls and married other men's wives in secret. (Do you think he gave Orson Hyde a heads-up while he was over on the other side of the world?)

Of all the ad hoc, b***s*** excuses made by FAIR about various problem areas in Mormonism, I have to say that calling polygamy---particularly in the Nauvoo period---"civil disobedience" is the most laughably stupid.

You are entitled to your opinion.

Thank you for admitting that the "civil disobedience" hypothesis is simply an opinion with no factual basis.

Hey, here's a thought, why don't you or sock puppet or Scratch or CamNC4Me or another member of your tribe think of a criticism that has not been addressed by FAIR/MI. Wouldn't that be a novel idea? I won't hold my breath, of course, because rote anti-Mormon talking points are the norm around here.

As soon as any of the above begin to believe in God, think that there is life after death, or attend the LDS Church with their children, then you might have some basis in talking about "tribe."

I admire your determination to not do things halfway. You're not satisfied making a fool of yourself a little bit. You go all the way. So when I invite you to specify what rote anti-Mormon talking points I am parroting, you just repeat what you said and continue to omit any supporting evidence for what you say. Argument by assertion, like masturbation, might feel good to you, but it's not doing much for anyone else.

Sure, FARMS and the MI purport to have addressed various problems with Mormonism. But their answers are vapid, contrived, and impressive to no one except those who desperately want some justification for clinging to their cherished beliefs. You also seem to forgot that most of what I have talked about on this board is a factually-supported explanation of why the "answers" from FAIR and the MI are nothing but religious three-card Monte.

But I think the cherry on top of this whole thing is that when I point out the problems with LDS apologetics, you whine that I am quote mining, and then the guy who is in charge of the FAIR wiki tells you that I am not quote mining.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15412&p=388062&hilit=quote+mining#p388062

[Bedlamite]

...
Upon what basis, or upon what set
of standards are we to determine when Smith was telling the truth
and when he was telling lies?
...
UD

I suppose that we might consult the testimonies of those who
were personally associated with Smith during the 1830s and
1840s, to see what they had to say.

We could read through the Journal of Discourses to see what
people like Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Jedediah M. Grant,
etc. had to tell us about Smith's reliability.

Perhaps we could even take the time to read through the
"History of the Church," and through the early Mormon
periodicals, in order to see what Willard Richards, Orson Hyde,
Parley P. Pratt, etc. had to say about Smith's honesty.

But ------ our accepting Smith's secret pronouncements as the
holy word of the Lord Almighty, seems to require a higher set
of standards than our simply believing the old LDS General Authorities.

My conclusion is, that when Mormons tell us to believe Smith's
honesty about such things as his polygamy revelation, they
are expecting too much of us.

I for one, will not accept Smith's secret teachings as Divine revelation,
without some more reliable witness than the testimony of his followers.

UD

[_Simon Belmont]

Blah blah blah, nothing of substance. Blah blah blah Doctor Scratch is always right no matter what he does or how he acts. Blah Blah Blah I'd like to one day find myself waking up next to Doctor Scratch, blah blah blah.

[_Darth J]

Simon Belmont:

Was Ron Lafferty engaging in civil disobedience?

[_Simon Belmont]

He did not "f*** teenage girls behind their wife's back and marry other men's wives in secret."

He most certainly did both of those things. I've already covered this topic here and on my blog.

Secret Wives

Okay, well I guess that depends on whether there is evidence to suggest that Joseph Smith's plural marriages were sexual in nature. Anderson and Faulring note that "there is no reliable information on sexual relations after his [Joseph Smith] being sealed to a married woman." (Richard Lloyd Anderson, and Scott H. Faulring. FARMS Review: Volume - 10, Issue - 2, Pages: 67-104. A review of "In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith" by Todd M. Compton. Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 1998. http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publica ... m=2&id=290)

[_Joseph]

Face it blemish, JoeSmith's only real way to tell 'inspiration' was if hs hard-on pointed the way.

They guy was a sexual predator, an adulterer and a dirtbag con artist.

[_Simon Belmont]

That must be why in the Nauvoo city council meetings to decide what to do about the Nauvoo Expositor, Hyrum Smith insisted that plural marriage was not being practiced.

It wasn't as he understood it. Being religiously sealed to more than one women was probably not a definition of plural marriage that Hyrum was aware of.

God flying by the seat of his pants so that Joseph Smith can do whatever he wants

Sorry. God makes exceptions to the rules sometimes for the advancement of His plan. This is common knowledge.

And it really is not a matter of opinion that Joseph Smith f****d teenage girls and married other men's wives in secret. (Do you think he gave Orson Hyde a heads-up while he was over on the other side of the world?)

If you have evidence that Joseph Smith's plural marriages were sexual in nature, let's have it.

Thank you for admitting that the "civil disobedience" hypothesis is simply an opinion with no factual basis.

I admitted no such thing. I said "you are entitled to your opinion," which means, exactly, that you are entitled to your opinion.

As soon as any of the above begin to believe in God, think that there is life after death, or attend the LDS Church with their children, then you might have some basis in talking about "tribe."

I am not so sure why you still believe these silly superstitions, Darth J. Sock puppet, Stak, and Tarski no doubt look down upon you as a fellow tribesman for this weakness.

So when I invite you to specify what rote anti-Mormon talking points I am parroting, you just repeat what you said and continue to omit any supporting evidence for what you say. Argument by assertion, like masturbation, might feel good to you, but it's not doing much for anyone else.

How's this: you've never asserted anything that hasn't been dealt with by FAIR or MI.

But their answers are vapid, contrived, and impressive to no one except those who desperately want some justification for clinging to their cherished beliefs. You also seem to forgot that most of what I have talked about on this board is a factually-supported explanation of why the "answers" from FAIR and the MI are nothing but religious three-card Monte.

And I say they aren't. You only say they are because you have become a jaded LDS critic, while I still maintain my faith.

But I think the cherry on top of this whole thing is that when I point out the problems with LDS apologetics, you whine that I am quote mining, and then the guy who is in charge of the FAIR wiki tells you that I am not quote mining.

I do not work for FAIR, am not affiliated with FAIR in any way. Why would I care whether wiki-wonka said something, or Joseph/Joey?

[_Darth J]

That must be why in the Nauvoo city council meetings to decide what to do about the Nauvoo Expositor, Hyrum Smith insisted that plural marriage was not being practiced.

It wasn't as he understood it. Being religiously sealed to more than one women was probably not a definition of plural marriage that Hyrum was aware of.

That isn't even close to what happened.

Nauvoo City Council Minutes

Councilor Hyrum Smith proceeded to show the falsehood of Austin Cowles in the Expositor, in relation to the revelation referred to.
Mayor said he had never preached the revelation in private; but he had public. Had not taught to the anointed in the Church in private, which statement many present confirmed; that on inquiring concerning the passage on the resurrection concerning "they neither marry nor are given in marriage," &c., he received for answer, "Man in this life must marry in view of eternity, otherwise they must remain as angels, or be single in heaven," which was the doctrine of the revelation referred to; and the Mayor spoke at considerable length in explanation of this principle, and was willing, for one, to subscribe his name to declare the Expositor and whole establishment a nuisance.

God flying by the seat of his pants so that Joseph Smith can do whatever he wants

Sorry. God makes exceptions to the rules sometimes for the advancement of His plan. This is common knowledge.

That is selective morality. Funny how God making exceptions to the rules invariably personally benefitted Joseph Smith.

And it really is not a matter of opinion that Joseph Smith f****d teenage girls and married other men's wives in secret. (Do you think he gave Orson Hyde a heads-up while he was over on the other side of the world?)

If you have evidence that Joseph Smith's plural marriages were sexual in nature, let's have it.

Oh, Simon. Do you really think anyone takes you seriously? You already admitted this in another thread.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=14539&p=358121&hilit=+rough+stone+rolling+#p358121

As I have stated before, evidence points to Joseph Smith having sexual relations with his wives. That does not mean, however, that the reason for polygamy was sex, it may have simply been a by product.

Thank you for admitting that the "civil disobedience" hypothesis is simply an opinion with no factual basis.

I admitted no such thing. I said "you are entitled to your opinion," which means, exactly, that you are entitled to your opinion.

If my statements about civil disobedience are merely an opinion, then so are FAIR's. FAIR offers no factual basis whatsoever for its claim about civil disobedience.

As soon as any of the above begin to believe in God, think that there is life after death, or attend the LDS Church with their children, then you might have some basis in talking about "tribe."

I am not so sure why you still believe these silly superstitions, Darth J. Sock puppet, Stak, and Tarski no doubt look down upon you as a fellow tribesman for this weakness.

This is that tit-for-tat "moral voice" again. Others have pointed out your reactionary tribalism, so now you'll just say, "I know you are, but what am I?"

So when I invite you to specify what rote anti-Mormon talking points I am parroting, you just repeat what you said and continue to omit any supporting evidence for what you say. Argument by assertion, like masturbation, might feel good to you, but it's not doing much for anyone else.

How's this: you've never asserted anything that hasn't been dealt with by FAIR or MI.

No crap. It was the weakness and inanity of the purported answers by FAIR and the MI that brought me here. I have been talking about the vacuousness of how they have "dealt" with problems in Mormonism---by directly contradicting the teachings of the Church, for example.

But their answers are vapid, contrived, and impressive to no one except those who desperately want some justification for clinging to their cherished beliefs. You also seem to forgot that most of what I have talked about on this board is a factually-supported explanation of why the "answers" from FAIR and the MI are nothing but religious three-card Monte.

And I say they aren't. You only say they are because you have become a jaded LDS critic, while I still maintain my faith.

Trying to salvage my faith by turning to FAIR and the MI is how I became a jaded LDS critic. And I'm serious when I tell you to stop telling people you have a master's in philosophy. Your constant resort to "us vs. them" to dismiss what you don't like and justify whatever supports your cherished beliefs is such a puerile worldview. It is so much worse if you are telling the truth about having an advanced degree.

Are you being serious that the measure of whether a belief is reasonable is whether you adhere to that belief? Is that what you wrote your thesis about?

]But I think the cherry on top of this whole thing is that when I point out the problems with LDS apologetics, you whine that I am quote mining, and then the guy who is in charge of the FAIR wiki tells you that I am not quote mining.

I do not work for FAIR, am not affiliated with FAIR in any way. Why would I care whether wiki-wonka said something, or Joseph/Joey?

You don't care what the administrator of the FAIR wiki says? Oh, okay. You just obsequiously defer to whatever FAIR says as the definitive answer for everything.

Sauce.

Oh, and you plagiarize the FAIR wiki, too.