It is currently Wed Nov 21, 2018 4:30 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 9:55 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 4947
Runtu wrote:
wenglund wrote:
Your questions presuppose: 1) that there is sufficient information, for me to confidently and comfortably answer yes or no; 2) that I am sufficiently aware of the information for me to confidently and comfortably answer yes or no; 3) that the questions apply equally to each and every woman that Joseph was sealed to; and 4) that I have an interest in devoting any more attention to this issue than what I already have. Each of those presupposition are, to one degree or another, incorrect.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


1. Obviously, we disagree as to whether firsthand testimony constitutes information that might be evidentiary.


I am not questioning it as evidence. I am questioning whether it is conclusive or not.

Quote:
2. If this is true, you have no grounds for dismissing our judgments as being of lower evidentiary standards than yours.


That would be true only if I have no knowledge whatsoever of the issue. To the extent that I do have knowledge, I have grounds to make such an assessment. But, your point is wewll taken

Quote:
3. I don't believe I claimed that. Of course, what I said describes perfectly the experience of several wives. Why is it necessary to apply that to all the wives?


With the exception of the second question, your questions were unqualified, and so I reasonably interpreted them to apply to all the wives equally.

Quote:
4. Again, given your lack of interest and refusal to look at evidence, you're left with little grounds for criticizing our judgments on these matters.


I agree.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:13 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:16 pm
Posts: 1372
wenglund wrote:
Runtu wrote:
wenglund wrote:
Your questions presuppose: 1) that there is sufficient information, for me to confidently and comfortably answer yes or no; 2) that I am sufficiently aware of the information for me to confidently and comfortably answer yes or no; 3) that the questions apply equally to each and every woman that Joseph was sealed to; and 4) that I have an interest in devoting any more attention to this issue than what I already have. Each of those presupposition are, to one degree or another, incorrect.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


1. Obviously, we disagree as to whether firsthand testimony constitutes information that might be evidentiary.


I am not questioning it as evidence. I am questioning whether it is conclusive or not.

Quote:
2. If this is true, you have no grounds for dismissing our judgments as being of lower evidentiary standards than yours.


That would be true only if I have no knowledge whatsoever of the issue. To the extent that I do have knowledge, I have grounds to make such an assessment. But, your point is wewll taken

Quote:
3. I don't believe I claimed that. Of course, what I said describes perfectly the experience of several wives. Why is it necessary to apply that to all the wives?


With the exception of the second question, your questions were unqualified, and so I reasonably interpreted them to apply to all the wives equally.

Quote:
4. Again, given your lack of interest and refusal to look at evidence, you're left with little grounds for criticizing our judgments on these matters.


I agree.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


This is rich, where else other than on a board frequented by Mormon apologists (and perhaps a board frequented by members of the MBLA or the FLDS) can one find otherwise decent, moral, reasonable people constructing tortured defenses of a powerful man (married no less) who uses his position of power to manipulate/coerce minors subject to his authority into sexual relations?

Wade, do you have any sense how your position would play out in the world outside of Mormon apologetics?

_________________
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 10:40 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16719
Location: Northern Utah
guy sajer wrote:
This is rich, where else other than on a board frequented by Mormon apologists (and perhaps a board frequented by members of the MBLA or the FLDS) can one find otherwise decent, moral, reasonable people constructing tortured defenses of a powerful man (married no less) who uses his position of power to manipulate/coerce minors subject to his authority into sexual relations?

Wade, do you have any sense how your position would play out in the world outside of Mormon apologetics?


I was just thinking about how for many years I thought the way Wade does about this: the evidence isn't conclusive, and besides, if God commanded it, so be it, etc. I think for me it said a lot more about my presuppositions than it did about the evidence, which is there for anyone to see. I knew the church was true, so whatever happened was within that constraint. It wasn't until I stopped trying to defend what I knew was indefensible that everything made sense.

For the record, I think reasonable people can disagree about the import of the evidence, but I'm surprised anyone would say that the evidence isn't clear and conclusive.

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 11:41 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:27 am
Posts: 4085
Location: Planet Earth
Who Knows wrote:
His site's back up now, though not on BYU's official website:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_5171406

Quote:
Less than 24 hours after its removal from a university Web site, a polygamy page crafted by a Brigham Young University employee has a new home.
Jim Engebretsen has relaunched the page, which offers historical and scholarly works on the origins and status of polygamy within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at www.mormon-polygamy.org.

Here's the Deseret News take on all this:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660193375,00.html

_________________
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:56 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 4947
guy sajer wrote:
This is rich, where else other than on a board frequented by Mormon apologists (and perhaps a board frequented by members of the MBLA or the FLDS) can one find otherwise decent, moral, reasonable people constructing tortured defenses of a powerful man (married no less) who uses his position of power to manipulate/coerce minors subject to his authority into sexual relations?

Wade, do you have any sense how your position would play out in the world outside of Mormon apologetics?


I have an idea, and I suspect it differs radically from yours. If so, why would I suppose that you (who ever you are, and whatever your training and background might be) would be in a better position to say than me, one way or the other?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 3:59 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 4947
Runtu wrote:
guy sajer wrote:
This is rich, where else other than on a board frequented by Mormon apologists (and perhaps a board frequented by members of the MBLA or the FLDS) can one find otherwise decent, moral, reasonable people constructing tortured defenses of a powerful man (married no less) who uses his position of power to manipulate/coerce minors subject to his authority into sexual relations?

Wade, do you have any sense how your position would play out in the world outside of Mormon apologetics?


I was just thinking about how for many years I thought the way Wade does about this: the evidence isn't conclusive, and besides, if God commanded it, so be it, etc. I think for me it said a lot more about my presuppositions than it did about the evidence, which is there for anyone to see. I knew the church was true, so whatever happened was within that constraint. It wasn't until I stopped trying to defend what I knew was indefensible that everything made sense.

For the record, I think reasonable people can disagree about the import of the evidence, but I'm surprised anyone would say that the evidence isn't clear and conclusive.


I think this says a lot about your new-found presuppositions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:12 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16719
Location: Northern Utah
wenglund wrote:
I think this says a lot about your new-found presuppositions.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Probably. I guess the question for me is that, did the evidence change my presuppositions, or vice versa?

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:19 pm 
Crack whore trainee
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 11:50 am
Posts: 1606
Location: ABG's
wenglund wrote:
guy sajer wrote:
This is rich, where else other than on a board frequented by Mormon apologists (and perhaps a board frequented by members of the MBLA or the FLDS) can one find otherwise decent, moral, reasonable people constructing tortured defenses of a powerful man (married no less) who uses his position of power to manipulate/coerce minors subject to his authority into sexual relations?

Wade, do you have any sense how your position would play out in the world outside of Mormon apologetics?


I have an idea, and I suspect it differs radically from yours. If so, why would I suppose that you (who ever you are, and whatever your training and background might be) would be in a better position to say than me, one way or the other?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Relativist Fallacy.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:32 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 8:16 pm
Posts: 1372
wenglund wrote:
guy sajer wrote:
This is rich, where else other than on a board frequented by Mormon apologists (and perhaps a board frequented by members of the MBLA or the FLDS) can one find otherwise decent, moral, reasonable people constructing tortured defenses of a powerful man (married no less) who uses his position of power to manipulate/coerce minors subject to his authority into sexual relations?

Wade, do you have any sense how your position would play out in the world outside of Mormon apologetics?


I have an idea, and I suspect it differs radically from yours. If so, why would I suppose that you (who ever you are, and whatever your training and background might be) would be in a better position to say than me, one way or the other?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


You don't mean to suggest, do you, that Joseph Smith's seduction of minor girls would be even remotely considered justifiable were it taken outside of the Mormon apologetics circle, do you?

Holy crap, I find this utterly incredible.

What apologists sometimes lack in critical self-reflection they certainly make up for in the "you've got to be kidding" category.

_________________
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 07, 2007 4:42 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm
Posts: 9189
wenglund wrote:
Jason Bourne wrote:
I would condemn both. But for Joseph the issue is really multifaceted. Why did Joseph marry other women in the first place? If God really told him to do so then why was he so ungodly about how he did it? Why did he hide it from his wife? Why did he use his power to persuade those in a less powerful position to marry him? Why promise exaltation? Why marry other men's wives? Why tell a young woman or girl that she was his from the pre-existence? That is immoral IMO. Of course the idea of marrying a fourteen year old is repugnant now and then. Especially under the persuasive influence of a man that those he was trying to persuade viewed as THE PROPHET. Such a man has a fiduciary responsibility to take extra care not to abuse the power and influence he has over his followers. In the case of plural marriage it seems that that power was abused and thus the immorality of it seems highlighted. Like I said, if God commanded it it It was not rolled out in a very godly way.


Unlike you, I don't pretend to have the answers to those question, nor do I presume to sit in moral judgement absent sufficient fact and adequate perspective. Apparently, you and others think yourselves in a position to do so--which I find ironic given what I believe to be the immorality of character assasinations underway on this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-



Hmm, let me see. I give some, what I think are, decent reasons for why I find the issue of plural marriage immoral and bad, and I did it without charecter assisination, and all you do is say, well I don't have all the answers and you, Jason, are bad for judging.

Nope Wade I do not have all the facts. But we do have some. And based on that one needs to evaluate best they can.

Let me ask you, if this were not Joseph Smith we were talking about do you think you might be less apt to bury your head in the sand about it? I did, for a long time. I just could not evaluate THE PROPHET, rationally. Behavior that I might find not nice in another I looked aside when it came to Joseph. I cannot to that amymore. I may be wrong, I may be judging unrighteouusly.

But you did not respond at all other then pretend you are taking some moral high road as well as pretend we do not have fact. I don't get it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 47 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group