Apologetic Argument: Joseph Smith's Man Love

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Apologetic Argument: Joseph Smith's Man Love

Post by _Chap »

Buffalo wrote:
DarkHelmet wrote: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.'


Yes, Leviticus 18:22:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination


My lesbian friends derive much spiritual comfort from this verse.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Apologetic Argument: Joseph Smith's Man Love

Post by _Darth J »

maklelan wrote:
Darth J wrote: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.


Sophomoric rhetoric........sophomoric rhetoric.........

You know, you may be onto something here.

What do you think this thread is saying, Maklelan?

I'll give you a couple of hints:

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai024.html

"The burden is on the critics to explain how Joseph Smith could possibly have fabricated the account about Nahom and the journey in the Arabian peninsula described in First Nephi."

http://www.fairblog.org/2010/10/07/geol ... of-mormon/

Steven Danderson Says:
October 10th, 2010 at 11:34 am

And, since YOU claim that the Book of Mormon is fiction, the burden of proof is on YOU.
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Re: Apologetic Argument: Joseph Smith's Man Love

Post by _maklelan »

Chap wrote: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".


No, my comment is in no way an example of that. I recognize the parody as such, I just think it betrays a rather juvenile approach to take an opportunity for actual critique and turn it into, "Oh, yeah? Well, I can take your methodology and insist it proves Joseph Smith was gay, and you can't do anything about it."
I like you Betty...

My blog
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Re: Apologetic Argument: Joseph Smith's Man Love

Post by _Some Schmo »

Darth J wrote:Or perhaps he was just a man who had sex with men. The possibilities are endless, and quibbling over the trivial details does not invalidate our belief.

In my prayer and study, I have come to this exact conclusion. He did spend time in jail, after all. I also had a vision that "urim and thummim" was originally just Joe trying to say "Your turn for thumbing" while he had a penis in his mouth.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Apologetic Argument: Joseph Smith's Man Love

Post by _Buffalo »

Chap wrote:
Yes, Leviticus 18:22:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination


My lesbian friends derive much spiritual comfort from this verse.


Indeed, and is it not born out in practice that lesbians have a lower rate of STDs than heteros? Is this not a case of the Lord protecting his Chosen People?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Re: Apologetic Argument: Joseph Smith's Man Love

Post by _maklelan »

Darth J wrote:Sophomoric rhetoric........sophomoric rhetoric.........

You know, you may be onto something here.

What do you think this thread is saying, Maklelan?


I already explained what it is saying.
I like you Betty...

My blog
_Buffalo
_Emeritus
Posts: 12064
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Re: Apologetic Argument: Joseph Smith's Man Love

Post by _Buffalo »

maklelan wrote:
Darth J wrote:Sophomoric rhetoric........sophomoric rhetoric.........

You know, you may be onto something here.

What do you think this thread is saying, Maklelan?


I already explained what it is saying.


By all means, parody, but don't make it funny. Is that what you're saying?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.

B.R. McConkie, © Intellectual Reserve wrote:There are those who say that revealed religion and organic evolution can be harmonized. This is both false and devilish.
_Darth J
_Emeritus
Posts: 13392
Joined: Thu May 13, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Apologetic Argument: Joseph Smith's Man Love

Post by _Darth J »

maklelan wrote:
Darth J wrote:Sophomoric rhetoric........sophomoric rhetoric.........

You know, you may be onto something here.

What do you think this thread is saying, Maklelan?


I already explained what it is saying.


Yes, I saw. "Oh, yeah? Well, I can take your methodology and insist it proves Joseph Smith was gay, and you can't do anything about it."

I don't mind if you do anything about it.

If this thread "betrays a rather juvenile approach to take an opportunity for actual critique." then I wonder how it was that you were able to recognize "your methodology" at work.
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Re: Apologetic Argument: Joseph Smith's Man Love

Post by _maklelan »

Darth J wrote:If this thread "betrays a rather juvenile approach to take an opportunity for actual critique." then I wonder how it was that you were able to recognize "your methodology" at work.


My methodology? I was paraphrasing your OP. As far as I know, you weren't addressing me.
I like you Betty...

My blog
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Apologetic Argument: Joseph Smith's Man Love

Post by _Chap »

maklelan wrote:
Chap wrote: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".


No, my comment is in no way an example of that. I recognize the parody as such, I just think it betrays a rather juvenile approach to take an opportunity for actual critique and turn it into, "Oh, yeah? Well, I can take your methodology and insist it proves Joseph Smith was gay, and you can't do anything about it."


A parody is an excellent mode of criticism. I think that in this case Darth J's piece succeeds admirably in demonstrating the basic idiocy of the 'you can't prove this is not true' apologetic mode, a mode of argument that is devoid of persuasive power to anyone not already heavily committed to the theses it defends for reasons independent of argument and evidence.

by the way, why does Maklekan, who is hardly an old guy, use 'juvenile' as a term of abuse? I have known many juveniles who thought a lot more clearly and honestly than many of their elders. And when they hear pious nonsense they tend to giggle, while their elders sit there solemnly drinking it all in and going 'hush'.

Your mileage may differ, of course.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Post Reply