My 13 year-old son explains the reason for polygamy

[_stemelbow]

Dude, you're lying.

You know what a liar is and you know how people use it, but it's inconvenient for the point you'd like to believe is valid, so you're lying about you're interpretation of the word liar. Does that make you a liar? Well, you've done this sort of thing several times before, so yes, I'm tempted to call you a liar. Lucky for you, you can hide in the defensive shell you’ve created for the purposes of this thread and tell yourself you’re not a liar, but that just reinforces the idea that you are a liar because that’s a lie.

Well, shoot, Schmoe, I've grown to like your posts. I'm sorry you are so offended for mine.

Its discouraging to see people turn on people because they hold a different opinion. Eerily it reminds me precisely of what many here complain about regarding some posters over at MDD. Oh well, Schmoe. have fun.

[_Molok]

If you lived in Nazi germany, would you lie about hiding jewish families in your home? Would you feel like it wouuld be wrong to lie then?

I would happily lie...I don't believe in sin so no problem for me...i was actually responding to "As it is any of his lies could have been for purposes you simply aren't privy too." - who's life did Joe's lies save? Which of Joe's lies are justifiable and what "purposes" are we not privy to?

Joseph's lies probably saved his own life a few times, does that count?

[_stemelbow]

I'm sure Joseph wept tears of untold grief, and thought of nothing but Emma while he was nailing those women.

Oh...my eyes teared up...that was funny.

[_schreech]

Well I don't know what happens, but that's not my point at all. I'm just curious what constitutes the label liar in your mind. I fear you would consider me a liar too, seeing your subjective determinants. Oh well. It doens't seem to helpful because based on your subjective determinants anyone can be considered a liar it seems. If one lies a lot (what constittues a lot exactly, I mean I could lie a lot. I've lied at least 100 times in my life), if one doesn't feel shame for lying (I admit I feel no shame for half of my lies), if one lies in depth (I admit sometimes my lies have great depth, in terms of quality and cleverness) and I've left out tons of information when I rehearse events. Not only am I a liar, then, but I'd have a hard time thinking not one soul who lives is not a liar, under such conditions.

You are right, you and joe are both liars...i agree that we shouldn't expect any higher level of honesty from a man claiming to be a prophet (and hence the mouth-piece) of god. Whatever you need to tell yourself to maintain belief i suppose....don't worry, none of your LDS beliefs are based on any lies joe told....

[_schreech]

Joseph's lies probably saved his own life a few times, does that count?

Im thinking his lies are what got him and his buddies killed but, maybe...

[_stemelbow]

I see. You never use the word 'liar' at all. That makes you a pretty unusual example amongst native English speakers. And you do that because, to refer to your other post, you find it "doesn't really help to "categorize people with a negative label". I wonder how far you will take that?

If I habitually take things from people that do not belong to me without their consent and by deception in order to make money, I suppose you just call me a 'person', not a thief?

Does everybody steal? I'm not sure my point has been clear at all. Probably my fault--here I was, in my head, thinking you guys aren't listening. Sorry about the confusion. It certainly depends on the context of taking things from others without their consent. If I take my wife's used cup to fill it up for me, I don't see how that constitutes theivery. If I take my work-mates apple without asking him with the intent of replacing it for him, I don't think that's theivery either.

If I habitually have sexual intercourse with unwilling women by using coercion to make them submit to me, I suppose you just call me a 'person', not a rapist?

I'm disgusted by this example. I don't know why you think it applies.

You see, if you are not consistent about this 'no negative terms' stuff, some people might suspect you only abandoned the use of the word 'liar' because you wanted to stop it being applied to Joseph Smith.

I don't care what peole think about me...I'm trying to dicuss a point here. I'm quite perplexed how far off my point you are.

[_Rambo]

I'm sure Joseph wept tears of untold grief, and thought of nothing but Emma while he was nailing those women.

Oh...my eyes teared up...that was funny.

Nice one Molok. These are the comments that keep bringing me back here. We should rename this website to "funny Mormon discussions" :)

[_Chap]

I see. You never use the word 'liar' at all. That makes you a pretty unusual example amongst native English speakers. And you do that because, to refer to your other post, you find it "doesn't really help to "categorize people with a negative label". I wonder how far you will take that?

If I habitually take things from people that do not belong to me without their consent and by deception in order to make money, I suppose you just call me a 'person', not a thief?

Does everybody steal? I'm not sure my point has been clear at all. Probably my fault--here I was, in my head, thinking you guys aren't listening. Sorry about the confusion. It certainly depends on the context of taking things from others without their consent. If I take my wife's used cup to fill it up for me, I don't see how that constitutes theivery. If I take my work-mates apple without asking him with the intent of replacing it for him, I don't think that's theivery either.

Please note that I was careful to say "take things from people that do not belong to me without their consent and by deception in order to make money"

If I habitually have sexual intercourse with unwilling women by using coercion to make them submit to me, I suppose you just call me a 'person', not a rapist?

I'm disgusted by this example. I don't know why you think it applies.

Your disgust is irrelevant. I am just trying to see whether you are willing to be consistent in your refusal to use negative terms to describe people because of their actions. Evidently you are not.

You see, if you are not consistent about this 'no negative terms' stuff, some people might suspect you only abandoned the use of the word 'liar' because you wanted to stop it being applied to Joseph Smith.

I don't care what peole think about me...I'm trying to dicuss a point here. I'm quite perplexed how far off my point you are.

I think the problem is you may not even see the implications of the way you are arguing. But I am done discussing with you for the moment - other people have seen enough of our arguments to judge which of us they find more reasonable in our attitudes to the use of the word 'liar'.

[_stemelbow]

Fine by me, Chap. Not everyone steals to make money, and not eveyone rapes people. There's simply no comparison here. Its not a matter of consistency based on that.

[_Buffalo]

I'm sure Joseph wept tears of untold grief, and thought of nothing but Emma while he was nailing those women.

:D