Apologetic Argument: Joseph Smith's Man Love

[_maklelan]

The suggest-Joseph-Smith-was-gay version of Russell's Teapot. Top shelf.

[_Darth J]

The suggest-Joseph-Smith-was-gay version of Russell's Teapot. Top shelf.

You are welcome to disprove it, if you can.

Until you can conclusively prove otherwise, I feel very confident in maintaining my belief.

[_sock puppet]

The suggest-Joseph-Smith-was-gay version of Russell's Teapot. Top shelf.

You are welcome to disprove it, if you can.

Until you can conclusively prove otherwise, I feel very confident in maintaining my belief.

Teapots. Man-love.

I prefer the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

[_ludwigm]

The suggest-Joseph-Smith-was-gay version of Russell's Teapot. Top shelf.

I agree 100%.
The 30+ wives on both side show something different aberration.

...but I've never thought maklelan would use this argument...

sometimes called the celestial teapot, cosmic teapot or Bertrand's teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion

[_Drifting]

There is an apologetic theory circulating that the hat was placed on Olivers lap whilst Joseph was translating and it was this that led to confusion and scribal error over some of the words because Joseph struggled to enunciate clearly.

[_maklelan]

You are welcome to disprove it, if you can.

Until you can conclusively prove otherwise, I feel very confident in maintaining my belief.

No, I'm not concerned with this little exercise, I'm just amused by the way sophomoric rhetoric has crowded out actual discourse here.

[_DarkHelmet]

Although gay love may seem wrong we must remember one thing, that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.

[_Buffalo]

Often, the Lord does not fully explain the reasons for his commands. However it has been speculated that there were excess widowers in the church who needed taking care of, and God's solution to this gender imbalance was to have Joseph give those men a jolly good rogering.

It may also be that the Lord wanted to test and try the faith and obedience of the early members of the church, by having women subject their husbands to the iron rod of Joseph's priesthood.

It should be noted that polygayme was practiced only by a tiny percentage of members of the church. If you look at how ugly some of the men who Brigham Young associated were, you can easily see this was about obedience, not lust!

[_Chap]

You are welcome to disprove it, if you can.

Until you can conclusively prove otherwise, I feel very confident in maintaining my belief.

No, I'm not concerned with this little exercise, I'm just amused by the way sophomoric rhetoric has crowded out actual discourse here.

Wow! Ten minutes ago I read about Poe's Law for the first time and now here is an example!

Maklekan is criticizing a parody of apologetic writing because in it, he says, "sophomoric rhetoric has crowded out actual discourse".

[_Buffalo]

Although gay love may seem wrong we must remember one thing, that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another.

That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another. God said, 'Thou shalt not lie down with a man as with woman'; at another time He said, 'Thou shalt go unto mine servant Brigham and split his trouser hams like it's Christmas dinner.'