Does it take more faith to stay, or to go?

[_Themis]

Finally, as a post-script to the above, please permit me to get on my hobby horse again. What value are your anonymous rants and personal attacks? Should we really credit them? Aren't the more credible arguments made by people with real names and positions in life?

Credible arguments may be on average made by people who go by their real names, but an arguments merits stand on the arguments themselves, not on who makes them and whether they are anonymous. Plenty of people who go by their real names have terrible arguments, and many who are anonymous make very credible arguments. Your hobby horse is just an excuse to dismiss the argument.

[_sock puppet]

One cannot engage in the politics of personal destruction if he does not know the in real life identity of his target.

Anonymity keeps the discussion about the topic and the merits, and makes it more difficult to lob personal insults. As long as the anonymous poster's statements are consistent and truthful, then the attacker is left with debating only the merits. That's rather difficult when the facts cut against the attacker.

Case in point. I have revealed that I am a in real life lawyer, so Mr. Bot takes pot shots at that fact, protesting thusly about my question about how JSJr kept his 7/27/1842 wedding vows to Sarah Ann Whitney to 'preserve' himself for her "and from all others", labeling it sarcastically as a 'courageous anonymous rant':

I wish there more non-anonymous believers willing to come in and respond to your courageous anonymous rants (so unheard of, really, for a member of the Bar to stoop so low), but you have me once in a while.

If the discussion is to stay on substantive topic, then anonymity is a tool to further this purpose in that it deprives the Derailers of their own tool to try and make the thread turn into personal insults that go with one's in real life background. It has to be frustrating when there is not more in real life information about a poster that a Derailer can use to throw a thread off course.

[_Pollypinks]

Does anybody here find this discussion as stupid as I do? God has to use seer stones and a magic hat to get his word across? Think about it. An all omnipotent God, capable of anything, dreams this scenerio up. Joseph Smith had to carry about 300 lbs. of gold back to his farm house, which, I don't think he was capable of doing, and then, use these silly things to read the plates. Then, he carries them back so they can be buried again. Come on.

[_sock puppet]

Does anybody here find this discussion as stupid as I do? God has to use seer stones and a magic hat to get his word across? Think about it. An all omnipotent God, capable of anything, dreams this scenerio up. Joseph Smith had to carry about 300 lbs. of gold back to his farm house, which, I don't think he was capable of doing, and then, use these silly things to read the plates. Then, he carries them back so they can be buried again. Come on.

That is one clear-cut example of why it certainly takes more faith to stay Mormon, than to go.

[Guest]

If the discussion is to stay on substantive topic, then anonymity is a tool to further this purpose in that it deprives the Derailers of their own tool to try and make the thread turn into personal insults that go with one's in real life background. It has to be frustrating when there is not more in real life information about a poster that a Derailer can use to throw a thread off course.

Yes. Quite eloquent, counselor.

Perhaps it is a derail, but I and many others of my profession would likely think your actions demonstrate poor character. Just sayin.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Does anybody here find this discussion as stupid as I do? God has to use seer stones and a magic hat to get his word across? Think about it. An all omnipotent God, capable of anything, dreams this scenerio up. Joseph Smith had to carry about 300 lbs. of gold back to his farm house, which, I don't think he was capable of doing, and then, use these silly things to read the plates. Then, he carries them back so they can be buried again. Come on.

Do you think the resurrection stupid? How about the requirement for a physical baptism? How about the tradition that Christians partake of the Lord's Supper weekly to symbolize the eating of Christ's body and the drinking of His flesh?

[_hugh jass]

Does anybody here find this discussion as stupid as I do? God has to use seer stones and a magic hat to get his word across? Think about it. An all omnipotent God, capable of anything, dreams this scenerio up. Joseph Smith had to carry about 300 lbs. of gold back to his farm house, which, I don't think he was capable of doing, and then, use these silly things to read the plates. Then, he carries them back so they can be buried again. Come on.

Do you think the resurrection stupid? How about the requirement for a physical baptism? How about the tradition that Christians partake of the Lord's Supper weekly to symbolize the eating of Christ's body and the drinking of His flesh?

Put the Bible billyclub away there bot boy.

[_Pollypinks]

Well, as a universalist, I will say the atonement was unnecessary. I will also say physical baptism is unnecessary as well, and that the catholic's version of communion is enough to make me have nightmares. Having said that, I do spend part of each Sunday with a presbyterian crowd where I am a member. Do I agree with every thing there? No. Does everyone agree with everything every where they go? No. But I find many who have my beliefs there, and we are welcomed, and the fellowship and social justice activities can't be beat. And selfishly, I began going there because I could sing in a really outstanding choir. Pure selfishness. And yes, my pastor knows exactly what I believe in, and she doesn't give a rip.

[_Some Schmo]

Aren't the more credible arguments made by people with real names and positions in life?

Not if we take your "arguments" as an example.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Put the Bible billyclub away there bot boy.

Why? I mean if you call angels and gold plates and seer stones "stupid," then how is that any different than dew-soaked lambskins to tell the future; floating axe-heads; pillars of fire and smoke to lead people around; the resurrection; the virgin birth?

The Bible is an appropriate frame of reference against which to judge the outrageous claims of Joseph Smith. His claims are rather in keeping with Biblical tradition.

Now, if you think the Bible is all nonsense and there is no room for stuff like the virgin birth and lepers being healed at a distance, or angels stirring waters to heal people, then my response to you is obvious. Why bother even being here? Why do you demand Mormons defend their theosophonies when you can't even admit to any such thing?