Apologetic Argument: Joseph Smith's Man Love

[Guest]

-

[_sock puppet]

"I dreamed that I saw Joseph sitting in a room, in the South West corner, near a bright window. He sat in a chair, with his feet, both on the lower round. I took him by the hand and kissed him on both cheeks, and wanted to know why we could not be together, as we once was.

"He said that it was all right, that we should not be together yet. We must be separated for a season.

"I said it was hard to be separated from him.

"He said, it was all right and putting his feet down on the floor.

This vision, which is consistent with the manly, passionate love that Joseph and Brigham had for each other, cannot be disproved by secular scholarship. It is in the realm of faith. And this, along with other mounting evidences, continue to show that opponents of the Joseph and Brigham love affair will find it increasingly difficult to prove that it is not true.

Only through direct revelation could anyone understand which set of cheeks Brigham was kissing.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

Would it have been worth remembering and writing down if it was JSJr's face cheeks that BY was kissing?

[Guest]

-

[_sock puppet]

"I dreamed that I saw Joseph sitting in a room, in the South West corner, near a bright window. He sat in a chair, with his feet, both on the lower round. I took him by the hand and kissed him on both cheeks, and wanted to know why we could not be together, as we once was.

"He said that it was all right, that we should not be together yet. We must be separated for a season.

"I said it was hard to be separated from him.

"He said, it was all right and putting his feet down on the floor.

This vision, which is consistent with the manly, passionate love that Joseph and Brigham had for each other, cannot be disproved by secular scholarship. It is in the realm of faith. And this, along with other mounting evidences, continue to show that opponents of the Joseph and Brigham love affair will find it increasingly difficult to prove that it is not true.

Only through direct revelation could anyone understand which set of cheeks Brigham was kissing.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

Would it have been worth remembering and writing down if it was JSJr's face cheeks that BY was kissing?

With logic like that how could anyone argue to the contrary?

Interestingly enough, to place Brigham's experience in context, he appears to have been in the habit of having dreams of being in compromising situations with men, Joseph was not his only dream lover.

For example in 1858 the Church Historian recorded "Prest. Young said he dreamed last night, of seeing Gov. [Alfred] Cumming. He appeared exceedingly friendly, and said to Prest. Young we must be united, we must act in concert; and commenced undressing himself to go to bed with him."

The spirit has testified to me and I know with every fiber of my being, beyond a shadow of a doubt that Brigham and Joseph were united in mortality and acted in concert while undressed and continue to in the heavenly realms above.

Thanks,

Hasa Diga Eebowai

Damn! that's funny.

[_ludwigm]

... of Austrian styling ...

Please explain/expand/unfold.
I am a member of (deceased) Austria-Hungary.

A former dual monarchy of central Europe consisting of Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia, and parts of Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia, and Italy. It was formed in 1867 after agitation by Hungarian nationalists within the Austrian empire and lasted until 1918.

[_Drifting]

... of Austrian styling ...

Please explain/expand/unfold.
I am a member of (deceased) Austria-Hungary.

A former dual monarchy of central Europe consisting of Austria, Hungary, Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia, and parts of Poland, Romania, Slovenia, Croatia, and Italy. It was formed in 1867 after agitation by Hungarian nationalists within the Austrian empire and lasted until 1918.

Laderhose...

I have never been to Austria but I hear it is a very beautiful country.

[_Some Schmo]

The interesting thing about all of this is that they never started out as lovers; just acquaintances. It was simply some friendly mutual masturbation that got them going. (And that's where SWK's inspiration came from, incidentally). Once it evolved to habitual tea bagging (under the guise of a concerned and intimate prostate exam), their relationship was forever defined.

The proofs just keep piling up, don't they?

[_stemelbow]

Proponents may continue to struggle in frustration at their inability to prove that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did not have it going on. But evidence may come forth someday to support our belief, and in the absence of proof to refute that belief, we are perfectly justified in maintaining it.

You can feel justified in maintaining whatever you like, DJ. I see no reason to go after people for believing something that another may or may not feel is true. You may very well find a reason to not believe Mormonism, just as many poeple might find reason to not believe your stupid little analogy-game. So? That doesn't have anything to do with a critic's claim that the Church is proven not true, or that the Church cannot possibly be true. The majority here is here claiming Mormonism is not true. To argue against the notion that the Church is untrue it is not necessary to prove it true. It is only necessary to address your silly claims. And yes, by and large they come out quite silly.

I'm not the one saying the Church is true and I can prove it (the question of what that would even mean is never even addressed here). I am here seeing others claim the Church is proven untrue. Well get to showing the proof then.

[_Some Schmo]

You can feel justified in maintaining whatever you like, DJ. I see no reason to go after people for believing something that another may or may not feel is true. You may very well find a reason to not believe Mormonism, just as many poeple might find reason to not believe your stupid little analogy-game. So? That doesn't have anything to do with a critic's claim that the Church is proven not true, or that the Church cannot possibly be true. The majority here is here claiming Mormonism is not true. To argue against the notion that the Church is untrue it is not necessary to prove it true. It is only necessary to address your silly claims. And yes, by and large they come out quite silly.

I'm not the one saying the Church is true and I can prove it (the question of what that would even mean is never even addressed here). I am here seeing others claim the Church is proven untrue. Well get to showing the proof then.

What's sad is that I bet you really think this is compelling rhetoric.

You guys. Ah well. pep pep

[_Chap]

I see no reason to go after people for believing something that another may or may not feel is true.

It's a discussion board. We set out the grounds for our own views, and we critique those we don't agree with. If you don't like to see that happen, don't watch. You certainly need not join in if you do not want to.

I'm not the one saying the Church is true and I can prove it (the question of what that would even mean is never even addressed here). I am here seeing others claim the Church is proven untrue. Well get to showing the proof then.

You are missing the point of the thread.

That may because you are perhaps not familiar with a certain kind of apologetic rhetoric that tries to support an LDS point of view by claiming that critics cannot prove that it is not true. The OP critiques such rhetoric by the very effective means of parody: it makes a ridiculous claim and demands that opponents prove it is not true, while pointing out that there is a host of little bits of evidence that do point in the direction of it being true, if only you look at them the right way. The idea is to show that this is simply not a reliable method of establishing truth or falsity, since it can be made to appear to support a position that everybody would agree is probably false. Therefore its use by LDS apologists is to be rejected.

That's quite reasonable, surely?