Defining Mormoniciousness

[Guest]

Mormoniciousness (mawr-muh-ish-uh-ness) is a coined term that means -

bcspace arguing indefensible Mormon history with Mr. Darth J.

Jeffery Holland stating that to get out of Mormonism you have to go "over, around or under the Book of Mormon" knowing full well that it is fiction (and badly written at that).

Mormon women being offended when their husbands leave them for younger women but defending Horny Holy Joe's polygamous marriages to 14 and 16 year old girls

The Mormon Corporation pretending to be a Religious organization.

The Mormon Corporation building a MegaMall at Billions of dollars expense and then upon discovering that it is a pig-in-a-poke investment claiming that it was never about the Money.

[_bcspace]

Well, we do have the term "anti-Mormon" to describe those who intentionally lie about or mischaracterize the Church. This seems to be the case for every plural marriage criticism I've come across lately.

So if you want a term for my successful defense of the 'indefensible', go ahead.

[_Untethered]

Well, we do have the term "anti-Mormon" to describe those who intentionally lie about or mischaracterize the Church. This seems to be the case for every plural marriage criticism I've come across lately.

So if you want a term for my successful defense of the 'indefensible', go ahead.

Could you please respond to my question from the polygamy thread? I think it would a great read in terms of defending the indefensible.

My view is that Christ must have been married in this life or the next and before his resurrection; he would have followed the doctrine as the LDS Church teaches because that is his own doctrine.

Could you go into more detail on this view?
Are you saying that during the 72 hours after Christ was crucified that there might have been deceased women who had received all of their LDS ordinances, possibly by proxy (how did that work?) and then were sealed to Him, most definitely by proxy; and by who? and where? and where is the evidence of proxy sealings in the New Testament?
I'm not trying to antagonize you, I really want to know how you think this would work.

[_cognitiveharmony]

Well, we do have the term "anti-Mormon" to describe those who intentionally lie about or mischaracterize the Church.

I've never hear you describe yourself as anti-mormon before? Although...I guess I could agree with the term as any TBM reading the stuff you post on here will probably soon be on their way out.

This seems to be the case for every plural marriage criticism I've come across lately.

So if you want a term for my successful defense of the 'indefensible', go ahead.

Why don't you head back over to that thread that you seem to have fled and try to show us where anyone has lied or mischaracterized the church? You're actually claiming a successful defense after that smack down? Incredible.

[_bcspace]

Could you please respond to my question from the polygamy thread? I think it would a great read in terms of defending the indefensible.

Sure. I didn't see your post.

My view is that Christ must have been married in this life or the next and before his resurrection; he would have followed the doctrine as the LDS Church teaches because that is his own doctrine.

Could you go into more detail on this view?
Are you saying that during the 72 hours after Christ was crucified that there might have been deceased women who had received all of their LDS ordinances, possibly by proxy (how did that work?) and then were sealed to Him, most definitely by proxy; and by who? and where? and where is the evidence of proxy sealings in the New Testament?

Don't forget that it could have happened in life as opposed to the narrow window of time between his death and resurrection.

We do have good evidence in early Christianity that the esoteric rites were in use; a very LDS-like doctrine of salvation for the dead was also being taught then as well. Some see the Mount of Transfiguration as a possible instance of such rites being revealed to the apostles. Etc. So yes, I think it's not unreasonable to think that the esoteric rites were practiced among the early disciples of Christ. Perhaps Christ revealed the ordinances while having the work done for himself as an example.

As for who and precisely where, I think it would certainly be unreasonable to expect a definite answer given the information available. The early Christians seemed to often have practiced their esoteric rites 'underground' and so I don't necessarily expect them to to have been performed in the temple at Jerusalem as it was under different management.

But the notion is certainly NOT indefensible.

I'm not trying to antagonize you, I really want to know how you think this would work.

No worries. I don't feel antagonized.

[_bcspace]

Why don't you head back over to that thread that you seem to have fled and try to show us where anyone has lied or mischaracterized the church? You're actually claiming a successful defense after that smack down? Incredible.

That was indeed an incredible smack down I performed on you guys. All you're left with is "Something MUST have happened"

I haven't fled, I simply left off as you guys were repeating the same arguments. In that case, I feel no obligation to continue. I've said my piece, my defense stands, and in no case have any of you caused me to doubt or challenged my beliefs or made me feel like I couldn't inoculate anyone against your criticisms or not make a strong defense if someone asked me out of the blue. I am secure in my knowledge.

But I do keep an eye out for new twists and turns in your never ending rabbit holes. In that case, I'll be back at some point to terminate your arguments.

[_Saw Skooh]

Why don't you head back over to that thread that you seem to have fled and try to show us where anyone has lied or mischaracterized the church? You're actually claiming a successful defense after that smack down? Incredible.

I haven't fled, I simply left off as you guys were repeating the same arguments. In that case, I feel no obligation to continue.

...
I'll be back at some point to terminate your arguments.

Well, I posted something new and concrete for you to address, here. You're certainly welcome to return and do so at any time, when you feel you're ready. (I know I'm not the only one eager to see your response.)

[_bcspace]

Well, I posted something new and concrete for you to address, here. You're certainly welcome to return and do so at any time, when you feel you're ready. (I know I'm not the only one eager to see your response.)

Done and done.

[_sock puppet]

Mormon women being offended when their husbands leave them for younger women but defending Horny Holy Joe's polygamous marriages to 14 and 16 year old girls

Upon closer examination, there's a difference here. HHJ was going after girls, not other women (younger? yes; girls? no). HHJ's philandering had a splash of pedophilia added. For some Mormon women, that makes all the difference--apparently.

[_Bazooka]

Well, we do have the term "anti-Mormon" to describe those who intentionally lie about or mischaracterize the Church.

So Church leaders are actually anti-Mormon....wow!