I refuted your OP four days after you wrote it, and you never replied. Try again.
The Will dogpile post went on for a good two weeks, and ran out to well over 40 pages, as I recall, and I was there for the majority of it. You "refuted" nothing (Nice Grahamism there). What you did was repeat, over and over again, the same claims you made at the outset, which quickly became a mantra, a which made quite clear as the thread progressed, that your entire "misogyny" case against Will was a self interested dog and pony show.
CFR, Droopy. Link me to where this epic PWNage took place.
You know the thread, so why ask me (and there was at least one major spin-off as well, as I recall)?
I'm not an anti-Mormon by any definition of the word that I've ever heard---not even the loosest, most ridiculous of them---and I'm not interested in listening to you wax on about trends that you imagine you've observed among antis. Has no bearing on anything pertaining to me.
So now you run into naked prevarication to keep your posterior out of the proverbial sling. I suppose that's to be expected.
Nope. Didn't hap.
Yes, it did happen. You just don't see it because of that existential threat to your worldview Will initially posed, and which his defenders pressed upon you while they exposed the base motives behind the pious howls of moral outrage.
I do not see what you call "the restored gospel" or my husband's church as a threat to the legitimacy of my own worldview. Not even a little bit.
The transparent motives of the very thread under discussion, and your part in it, will simply not support that claim.
CFR and CFR. I want some examples of these traditional anti-Mormon arguments and consistent anti-Mormon positions I've taken.
You character assassinated Mr. Schryver to prevent the publication of his work. You and others here succeeded. You went as far as to slander him with what is, at all events, a bald faced lie regarding the 'c' word. The sheer extremity of your commitment to the destruction of his reputation, at whatever moral cost, is clearly indicative of a much deeper hostility to what he represents, which is the defense of the BofA as an authentic ancient text containing eternal truths and which, as such, testifies to the divine authenticity of the restored gospel and the Church that represents it on earth at present.
Run and hide, duck and cover, Jack, but your own behavior
in this forum keeps screaming, "Here I am, here I am!"
Please. Brigham Young did more to aid and abet "anti-LDS culture and worldview" than I ever did.
Its gratifying, in a certain way, to see you protest that you are not an anti-Mormon and then turn around and unambiguously confirm it in only a few brief sentences. Witting or unwitting, it was a grand performance.
You can't "pin me down" on anything because you can never be bothered to research some supporting examples to back up your wild caricatures of me. Guess you were absent for that day of class.
How about, just for your initiation, what bc characterized, in a debate with you, as your "grandiose claim" of the numerous affairs Joseph Smith allegedly had with sundry woman? That's a textbook anti-Mormon position, especially given that not a shred of compelling documentary corroboration exists to confirm such claims, or ever has.
Compton's book demonstrates convincingly that the historical evidence is heavily in favor of sex between Joseph Smith and at least some of his wives. Even FAIR and FARMS have admitted that this was likely the case. That is all that is needed for someone to decide that Joseph Smith's unions were, in some sense, adulterous. Compton also shows that in the cases of several of the wives, Emma Smith was completely unaware of the marriages. Likely she was unaware of most of them. Even the most diehard TBM would admit that a man who sleeps with other women without his wife's knowledge or consent is committing adultery.
Joseph Smith may have had sexual relations with some of his plural wives. That, after all, is one primary purpose of that institution. The utter lack of known descendants of any such relations militates against hasty inferences, however. But even if he did, these were, by definition, so long as lawfully performed under the mediation of the Melchizedek priesthood, non-adulterous by definition.
Legitimate plural marriage is biblical doctrine, and well attested in the OT. To accuse Joseph of adultery requires both a deep misunderstanding of core LDS doctrine regarding the various facets of eternal marriage as well as what could only be understood as a fundamentally apostate or certainly apostate-like intellectual/psychological orientation that places one's own personal biases/prejudices and perspectives above revelation, both ancient and modern.
Joseph was no adulterer so long as he was called and ordained to the practice of plural marriage by legitimate priesthood authority. Getting rid of Joseph's ministerial legitimacy has always been, of course, pivotal to subverting the entire basis of the Church's claims to divine legitimacy as an institution.
But of course, you knew that, didn't you?
I'd be pleased to hear your pro-Mormon perspectives of the Book of Abraham, Jack.