Are we enemies?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
MormonMendacity
2nd Counselor
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:56 pm

Re: Are we enemies?

Post by MormonMendacity »

Runtu wrote:<snip>For the record, I think the church works for some people. I know a lot of people who would be far worse off if they did not have Mormonism in their lives. (emphasis added)

Really? I wonder at your knowledge. How can one judge if a person would be "far worse off" without Mormonism?
Runtu wrote:I don't believe I'm one of those people, but I don't begrudge them for getting something out of the religion that I don't.

I agree with that. I do wonder if the constraints reinforce feeling of self-loathing. I know people who persist in holding on who suffer from depression. I constantly reaffirmed my happiness and alternatively repressed and then exhibited this kind of depression.

Runtu wrote:What do you think? Are we enemies, or just people who disagree passionately?


I think we are described as enemies because we challenge the prophetic pronouncements of church leaders. I would like to see the control exercised by the leaders on my loved ones reduced and eliminated. Many of them will not let go and prefer to suffer their depression in silence.

I would be glad to see the beast of Mormonism severely wounded...or at least allow some of its victims a little peace.
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Re: Are we enemies?

Post by Runtu »

MormonMendacity wrote:
Runtu wrote:<snip>For the record, I think the church works for some people. I know a lot of people who would be far worse off if they did not have Mormonism in their lives. (emphasis added)

Really? I wonder at your knowledge. How can one judge if a person would be "far worse off" without Mormonism?


One example: I have a relative who suffers from a mental illness and has had periods of activity and inactivity in the church. This relative functions much better when she is involved in the church, mostly because it gives her a sense of stability and a support group. And because "the gospel" gives her a focus she otherwise doesn't have. Could she find something else that works for her? I'm sure she could, but given her background and experience, Mormonism is the one thing that is readily at hand.

Runtu wrote:I don't believe I'm one of those people, but I don't begrudge them for getting something out of the religion that I don't.

I agree with that. I do wonder if the constraints reinforce feeling of self-loathing. I know people who persist in holding on who suffer from depression. I constantly reaffirmed my happiness and alternatively repressed and then exhibited this kind of depression.


I agree with you. That's one of the things that I've realized after leaving: we spent an awful lot of time telling ourselves how happy we were, all the while we had it reinforced that we were not good enough.

Runtu wrote:What do you think? Are we enemies, or just people who disagree passionately?


I think we are described as enemies because we challenge the prophetic pronouncements of church leaders. I would like to see the control exercised by the leaders on my loved ones reduced and eliminated. Many of them will not let go and prefer to suffer their depression in silence.

I would be glad to see the beast of Mormonism severely wounded...or at least allow some of its victims a little peace.


I would think that's quite clear from your posts. I'm not a fan of the church, obviously, but I am not convinced that it has to be a malignant force in the world. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think it's beyond redemption. In its current state, it does a lot of damage to people. Can that change? I don't know. I hope so.

User avatar
MormonMendacity
2nd Counselor
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:56 pm

Re: Are we enemies?

Post by MormonMendacity »

Runtu wrote:I would think that's quite clear from your posts. I'm not a fan of the church, obviously, but I am not convinced that it has to be a malignant force in the world. Maybe it's just me, but I don't think it's beyond redemption. In its current state, it does a lot of damage to people. Can that change? I don't know. I hope so.


I am also not convinced that it has to be a malignant force in the world; I believe there are many who want it to be a good one.

What I have come to realize is that engaging in topics that are off-limits -- even while attempting to do so respectfully -- has put me in the camp of the enemies. Over the years, my determination to engage in a gentle discourse with my Mormon friends and familes has eroded.

I frankly am happy to let them be LDS -- and in peace about it -- but they seem unable, or unwilling, to grant the same privilege of letting me worship how, where or what I may.

For example, when they give a child's blessing they never turn to me and ask if I would like to sacrifice a goat to Baal.
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.

User avatar
wenglund
God
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Re: Are we enemies?

Post by wenglund »

MormonMendacity wrote: I think we are described as enemies because we challenge the prophetic pronouncements of church leaders. I would like to see the control exercised by the leaders on my loved ones reduced and eliminated. Many of them will not let go and prefer to suffer their depression in silence.

I would be glad to see the beast of Mormonism severely wounded...or at least allow some of its victims a little peace.


Actually, you show yourself to be an enemy with statements like your last sentence above.

To be quite honest and frank, your portending to be the rescuer of victims is but a guise for your own controlling nature (look how you wish to control the Church leaders and even your loved ones). It also is contra-supportive of your loved ones, and thus unwittingly an exaccerbation of the depression you claim to be concerned about. In other words, you are stupidly "victimizing" the supposed "victims".

Please, for everyone's sake (including your own), take a moments pause from your self-deluding Joan-of-Arch complex, and try educating yourself on the REAL causes and treatments of depression. That way you just might stop insipidly trying to rob people of key preventions and interventions for depression, or discontinue supplanting corrosive elements instead.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

User avatar
MormonMendacity
2nd Counselor
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:56 pm

Re: Are we enemies?

Post by MormonMendacity »

wenglund wrote:To be quite honest and frank, your portending to be the rescuer of victims is but a guise for your own controlling nature...

To be equally as honest and frank, your analysis indicates your poor reading and comprehension skills. Lord help the souls you psycho-babelize!

MormonMendacity wrote:I think we are described as enemies because we challenge the prophetic pronouncements of church leaders. I would like to see the control exercised by the leaders on my loved ones reduced and eliminated. Many of them will not let go and prefer to suffer their depression in silence.

I would be glad to see the beast of Mormonism severely wounded...or at least allow some of its victims a little peace.

I don't portend to be their rescuer like you pretend to be smart.
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.

Pahoran
God
Posts: 1296
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:20 pm

Post by Pahoran »

harmony wrote:
Pahoran, we aren't talking about me, remember? My understanding, my behavior, my allegiances are not the subject we're discussing. Shift your focus, man! I am not the subject of this discussion; Joseph is, Joseph's behavior is, the impact of Joseph's behavior is.

Yet you keep making your miniscule and flawed knowledge the issue here. Plutarch has published on LDS history. You have not. His credentials are real. Yours are imaginary. Therefore, when he says that he understands the details and the nuances of the Fanny Alger case, he has credibility. When you deny that such understanding is even necessary, as you do below, that is at least an admission that you don't understand them. And even quite apart from your consistent pattern of dishonesty, that sinks your credibility right out of sight.

Then where is he in this conversation? Oh that's right. He's not here. He hasn't said anything, therefore he isn't the source of your understanding.

And Pahoran... you have no idea what I've published, on what subject I'm published, or what I'm considered expert in. And just because I don't tell you shouldn't be construed to mean I am not published, expert, or a consultant.

There are a great many fields of knowledge, and you may indeed be an expert in one or more of them.

But you are not an expert in Mormon things, including but not limited to LDS history. You know practically nothing about it at all.

And yet you explicitly claimed to know more about it than Plutarch does, then immediately denied that the specific kind of knowledge he questioned was even necessary.

You don't own your publications. I shall follow your example.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

harmony wrote:We're talking about Joseph's dirty lil affair with Fanny. You have yet to demonstrate why you think it should not be characterized as his dirty lil affair (ala Oliver, his friend and contemporary). I don't have to have anything other than the normal understanding of the event, since Oliver, Joseph's friend and contemporary, is the one who characterized it as a dirty little affair. Argue with Oliver, not me.

I don't need to. Oliver subsequently recanted his claims in that regard.

So... you deny this:
Cowdery wrote to his brother Warren, in January 1838, "When [Joseph Smith] was there we had some conversation in which in every instance I did not fail to affirm that which I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nastly, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger's was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deserted from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself." Johnson cites this letter in support of the contention that Joseph Smith Jr. initiated the first plural marriage with a young woman living in his home as a maid, Fanny Alger.[2] Although not named as a complaint in the letter or excommunication, Cowdery opposed the plural marriage doctrine.

It's from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cowdery

Do I deny that Oliver said it? No.

Was he being strictly truthful at the time? Perhaps not.

Was he right? Of course not.

He also rejoined the Church.

Since I've not left the church, our situations are not similiar and this has no bearing on this discussion. Why are you introducing this red herring?

That you have not the integrity to leave the Church you loathe, detest and slander at every opportunity is something that surprises me not at all; but you ought not to be so very proud of that fact.

The fact remains, though that, unlike you, Oliver repented.

Knowing vastly more about the matter than you do or ever will.

Fanny Alger was not a factor in Oliver's excommunication, nor was she a factor in his reconciliation with the church. Why are you conflating them? Do you have an agenda, like maybe to obscure what is plain to anyone reading the account?

No.

What is "plain" here is that everyone who knew more about the Fanny Alger case than you do reached rather different conclusions about it.

How committed are you to following his example?

Not at all.

Of course not; he did, after all, show some integrity in the end.

You are baiting and switching here, as you habitually do.

If you think this is bait and switch, you have a strange definition of the practice.

You claim that Joseph lied "in the name of the Lord" and when pressed, appeal to some statements published in "contemporary newspapers."

Where, in any "contemporary newspaper," does Joseph make such a denial "in the name of the Lord?"

Any time Joseph spoke from the pulpit, he spoke as God's mouthpiece.

So this is the feeble justification you offer for your false accusations, is it? That because Joseph was standing at a pulpit he was therefore speaking "as God's mouthpiece?"

Can you document this claim, or is it merely the dishonest ad hoc rationalisation it appears to be? As in, did Joseph ever say anything equivalent to "anytime I speak from the pulpit, I speak as God's mouthpiece?"

Or did you just make that up?

He repeatedly denied plural marriage both from the pulpit and from the newspaper, in court testimony, and in the journal's of his contemporaries.

Even if that is the case--and I do not concede that it is--it does NOT justify your evil and malicious accusation that he "lied in the name of the Lord."

Did you really think that I, of all people, would fall for it?

Messenger and Advocate (Aug 1835) pg. 163
"All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church should be held sacred and fulflled. Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife: one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."

History of the Church, vol. 5, pg. 30 (May 1836) Joseph Smith
"Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man, should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death,, when either is at liberty to marry again."

Thank you, and please note that these two statements are actually one statement reprinted. Please also note that Joseph authored neither of them.

Benjamin Johnson Letter to Gibbs, 1903 in E. Dale LeBaron (1967)
"And now to your question, 'How early did the Prophet Joseph practice polygamy?' I hardly know how wisely to reply, for the truth at times may be better withheld; but as what I am writing is to be published only under strict scrutiny of the wisest, I will say, that the revelation [D&C 132] to the Church at Nauvoo, July 21, 1843, on the Eternity of the Marriage Covenant and the Law of Plural Marriage, was not the first revelation of the law received and practiced by the Prophet. In 1835, at Kirtland, I learned from my sister's husband, Lyman R. Sherman, who was close to the Prophet, and received it from him, "that the ancient order of Plural Marriage was again to be practiced by the Church." This at the time, did not impress my mind deeply, although there then lived with his family a neighbor's daughter, Fannie Alger, a very nice and comely young woman about my own age, toward whom not only myself, but every one, seemed partial for the amiability of her."
(Date of marriage to Fannie Alger: prior to 1838, probably 1835 when Fannie Alger lived with Joseph Smith)

Thank you for providing evidence in support of the fact that this was a plural marriage, not a "dirty lil affair" as some dirty lil minds prefer to assume.

harmony wrote:
Section 132 is one of the Saints' most precious possessions. It lays out the highest and holiest of the revelations, namely, Celestial Marriage. The notion that it is merely some kind of "cover-up" is disgusting, ugly and filthy.

Well, for that you can blame Joseph.

I prefer to put the blame where it rightly belongs, thanks: with the liars who falsely accuse him without any evidence in support.

Wrong again, Pahoran. There is plenty of evidence, and it damns him.

Then produce it, and stop merely asserting it.

Until you do, I say that you are merely manifesting the content of your own mind.

harmony wrote:He's the one who has no witnesses for this revelation, no collaboration, no supporting evidence.

A great many events have taken place without witnesses, collaboration or supporting evidence. Does that mean they didn't happen?

You have no evidence against the authenticity of the revelation; not a shred.

Indeed, and you have no evidence that the revelation existed anywhere but in Joseph's mind. No witnesses, no heavenly messengers, no written record of when it was received. Which tells me it never was received, just like the priesthood ban (also based on a nonexistent revelation).

A malicious and deliberately dishonest comparison. As you know, there is indeed no record of any revelation regarding the Priesthood ban. As you also know, there is a revelation regarding Plural Marriage: namely, Doctrine and Covenants Section 132. You are therefore blatantly lying when you claim that it "never was received."

harmony wrote:He wrote it, long after his "dirty little affair" with Fanny was discovered,

And much too late for it to be used to "cover up" that plural marriage.

Oh balderdash, Pahoran. Joseph covered up his marriages until the day he died!

And given the murderous rage the "Christianity" of his neighbours was likely to manifest, who could blame him?

Sorry, let me rephrase that: what reasonable person could blame him?

There are few sure facts in history, "Harmony," but here is one: whatever the source of Joseph's revelations, at least he believed that they were from God; and he at all times acted on them on that basis and no other. Only the very vilest of haters--and that would include you--resort to the "charlatan" or "cover-up" explanation. Just as only the very filthiest of minds--and that would include yours--leap to the untenable conclusion that Plural Marriage was just an excuse for him to give rein to his libido.

He lived a clandestine, furtive, hidden life for his last 2 yrs, getting more and more caught up in his lies and flat out ruining his children's and Emma's lives and peace.

Your own experience in getting caught up in lies is clearly distorting your ability to understand Joseph.

It's not my vicious hate propoganda, Pahoran. It's Joseph's words, and the words of Joseph's contemporaries. You are the one ratcheting up the rhetoric, not me.

Really? Did Joseph tell everyone that he "lied in God's name repeatedly?" Those are your words, "Harmony," and your refusal to accept responsibility for them is as cowardly as it is dishonest.

On the contrary, Pahoran, I can prove he lied, and I can prove he did it when he was acting as God's mouthpiece. Therefore, he lied in God's name... repeatedly. (see above quotes)

Your argument is a non sequitur, and your above quotes do not support it.

But you have to resort to that disgusting bit of subterfuge, because you cannot produce a single instance where Joseph invoked the name of God in support of a false assertion.

Which is what "lying in the name of the Lord" actually means. It does not mean "lying while in his employ," which is the only way your mendacious word game actually works.

You are raving. Do you have anything to say at all? Where is all this evidence which you understand so well, but which you claim I cannot grasp?

Sweetie, this is not raving. This is harmony at her nicest, sweetest, most accommodating.

Well, "Harmony"--or rather, Discord--at her nicest, sweetest, most accommodating, is still raving by anyone else's standards.

And the evidence is all over the web. Just input "Joseph Smith plural marriage" into Google, and you'll hundreds of citations.

Uh-huh. So you resort to mere hand-waving.

In other words, you have nothing.

As you know, or ought to had you ever actually been an informed Latter-day Saint, nobody's alleged spiritual confirmation--whether real, imaginary or fabricated--can ever be evidence for anyone else. That you attempt to use yours as such is sound evidence against its authenticity.

You might want to take that to heart, Pahoran. Your "Having a rather retentive memory, and having forgotten more about it than you are ever likely to know, I am fully satisfied that he did and does." is less than convincing.

So sorry, but perhaps I'm not making myself plain: even if Joseph was every bit as dishonest as you accuse him of being, he would still have been more honest than you. I find it infinitely more likely that you would lie about a divine manifestation than that he would.

And besides, my own witness contradicts yours. So I will trust mine, knowing that at least mine actually happened.

Oh, now anyone who disagrees with you has a diseased mind?

Only when they indulge in filthy fantasies.

No filthy fantasies here, P. Just delivering the message that Joseph lied.

Which is part of your filthy fantasy.

Besides, we both know that if you really believed that he lied, that would merely make you admire him the more.

Oh, and just by the way: since the Lord went to all the trouble of restoring the Gospel, upon whom did Joseph's prophetic mantle devolve when he lost it?

You?

Not hardly. I'm female. We can't be blamed for any stupidity that comes out over any prophet's signature.

Thank you. So since you don't claim to be a prophet, you'll excuse me for not following you. In order for someone to be a true prophet, they must at least claim to be.

harmony wrote:You are not the spokesperson for the Latter-day Saints, Pahoran.

Tough luck. I am the only one in sight for the purposes of this discussion.

And you have no authority to speak for the church... none.

No, but I can say what the faith of the Latter-day Saints consists in, because unlike you, I actually share it.

One up. One up. One up. Big deal. Your argument is less than scintillating.

I can't think of any argument less "scintillating" that the absurd counterfactual that "the faith of the LDS doesn't exist." You must have been awfully desperate to resort to that.

harmony wrote:For the most part, the faith of the LDS doesn't exist, since we know the retention rates and number of full-tithe payers is miniscule in comparison to the official count on the books.

What meaningless blather. I agree that the set of believing Latter-day Saints is not coextensive with the set of members of record; but that does not mean that "the faith of the LDS doesn't exist." That's one of your more idiotic lies, which is saying something.

*sigh* Pahoran, Pahoran. Try to keep up, sweetie. You can't talk about the faith of the LDS, when you can't verify that anyone (not one single person) besides yourself has faith.

*Sigh* Discord, Discord. I am keeping up, sourie. You are intentionally equivocating here. The fact that a community has a shared faith with a given content is one that does not depend upon the ability of any member of that community being able to verify that any other member has faith. The two things are spelled the same, but they do not mean the same.

I can't believe you thought I'd fall for that obvious and maladroit deception.

Regards,
Pahoran

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

There are a great many fields of knowledge, and you may indeed be an expert in one or more of them.


Wow. A concession. Amazing.

But you are not an expert in Mormon things, including but not limited to LDS history. You know practically nothing about it at all.


I never claimed to be, so I don't know where you come with this stuff.

And yet you explicitly claimed to know more about it than Plutarch does, then immediately denied that the specific kind of knowledge he questioned was even necessary.


Let Plutarch fight his own battles. He's quite capable all on his own. If and when he gives some indication of what his expertise is in Mormon history, then you can flaunt it all you want. Until then, your claim is hollow.

Do I deny that Oliver said it? No.

Was he being strictly truthful at the time? Perhaps not.

Was he right? Of course not.


Uh... Pahoran? Oliver was there; you weren't. He wrote it, expressing his feelings to his brother, and you have the chutzpah to doubt him? Well, of course you do. Without Joseph, you have nothing.

The fact remains, though that, unlike you, Oliver repented.


Oliver repented of what he was excommunicated for, which was not for expressing his dismay over the dirty little affair. Oliver was excommunicated for his problems with authority, not for his problems with plural marriage.

What is "plain" here is that everyone who knew more about the Fanny Alger case than you do reached rather different conclusions about it.


Oh Pahoran. That is such a pile of horse manure! William Law, John Bennett, multiple others were all there, and they reached the same conclusion Oliver did! Are you so ignorant of church history that you missed the whole Nauvoo Expositor episode? Of course you aren't. You are ignoring it though.

Can you document this claim, or is it merely the dishonest ad hoc rationalisation it appears to be? As in, did Joseph ever say anything equivalent to "anytime I speak from the pulpit, I speak as God's mouthpiece?"


As far as any of the Saints at the time were concerned, every single time he stood at the pulpit or acted in his capacity as President of the church, he spoke as God's mouthpiece. It's only been in the last decade that we've seen the apologists come up with the "speaking as a man" escape clause.

Even if that is the case--and I do not concede that it is--it does NOT justify your evil and malicious accusation that he "lied in the name of the Lord."

Did you really think that I, of all people, would fall for it?


I never thought you were stupid, Pahoran. I may have to revise my thoughts about that though. Perhaps a more accurate descriptor would be "intentionally blind".

Thank you for providing evidence in support of the fact that this was a plural marriage, not a "dirty lil affair" as some dirty lil minds prefer to assume.


More accurately, a "dirty lil affair" until the oh-so-convenient revelation to make it all appear legit.


A great many events have taken place without witnesses, collaboration or supporting evidence. Does that mean they didn't happen?


Please name those revelations. I'm not the least bit interested in "events". We're talking revelations from God, not some random event you fabricate out of your own mind. This is Joseph we're talking about, and his ever-so-active imagination.

A malicious and deliberately dishonest comparison. As you know, there is indeed no record of any revelation regarding the Priesthood ban. As you also know, there is a revelation regarding Plural Marriage: namely, Doctrine and Covenants Section 132. You are therefore blatantly lying when you claim that it "never was received."


A fabricated revelation, written on the spur of the moment while under pressure to cover his extramarital peccadillos, with no heavenly messengers, no witnesses of any heavenly intervention, no hearing of God's voice... Sorry, Pahoran. You're going to have to do better than that.

There are few sure facts in history, "Harmony," but here is one: whatever the source of Joseph's revelations, at least he believed that they were from God; and he at all times acted on them on that basis and no other.


You don't know that. And that is certainly not a fact of history. His claims are history; the veracity of his claim has never been verified.

Just as only the very filthiest of minds--and that would include yours--leap to the untenable conclusion that Plural Marriage was just an excuse for him to give rein to his libido.


It is the only explanation that makes sense, given the parameters of the verifiable facts in evidence. And Oliver was in a position to know. You aren't.

[Your own experience in getting caught up in lies is clearly distorting your ability to understand Joseph.


I understand Joseph very well. You, on the other hand, want to put him on a pedestal and make him into something he wasn't. I much prefer his human weaknesses than your ficticious façade.

But you have to resort to that disgusting bit of subterfuge, because you cannot produce a single instance where Joseph invoked the name of God in support of a false assertion.


Every single time he spoke in public, he spoke as the president and prophet of the LDS church... God's mouthpiece. So when he lied, God lied.

Which is what "lying in the name of the Lord" actually means. It does not mean "lying while in his employ," which is the only way your mendacious word game actually works.


sorry... no more time.

User avatar
wenglund
God
Posts: 4947
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Re: Are we enemies?

Post by wenglund »

MormonMendacity wrote:
wenglund wrote:To be quite honest and frank, your portending to be the rescuer of victims is but a guise for your own controlling nature...


To be equally as honest and frank, your analysis indicates your poor reading and comprehension skills. Lord help the souls you psycho-babelize!


Enjoy the self-induced fog.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

User avatar
MormonMendacity
2nd Counselor
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 6:56 pm

Re: Are we enemies?

Post by MormonMendacity »

wenglund wrote:Enjoy the self-induced fog.

Thanks, Wade! As soon as I can get out of the fog you're generating, I'm sure that I will.
"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" --Homer Simpson's version of Pascal's Wager
Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool.
Religion is ignorance reduced to a system.

Pahoran
God
Posts: 1296
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:20 pm

Post by Pahoran »

harmony wrote:Uh... Pahoran? Oliver was there; you weren't. He wrote it, expressing his feelings to his brother, and you have the chutzpah to doubt him? Well, of course you do. Without Joseph, you have nothing.

Your mind-reading is as useless as always.

The fact remains, though that, unlike you, Oliver repented.

Oliver repented of what he was excommunicated for, which was not for expressing his dismay over the dirty little affair. Oliver was excommunicated for his problems with authority, not for his problems with plural marriage.

Actually his alleged "dismay over" Joseph's plural marriage was exactly a symptom of "his problems with authority."

Here's a little hint for you, Discord: Oliver authored the declaration on marriage which you quoted, twice, in your previous post. He did so in response to what he later called an "affair."

Can you connect the dots, or do I need to spell it out for you?

What is "plain" here is that everyone who knew more about the Fanny Alger case than you do reached rather different conclusions about it.

Oh Pahoran. That is such a pile of horse manure! William Law, John Bennett, multiple others were all there, and they reached the same conclusion Oliver did!

What? Bennett and the Law brothers weren't on the scene until years later in Nauvoo. Did you really not know that?

Are you so ignorant of church history that you missed the whole Nauvoo Expositor episode? Of course you aren't. You are ignoring it though.

So does anyone who's actually read that example of yellow journalism.

Can you document this claim, or is it merely the dishonest ad hoc rationalisation it appears to be? As in, did Joseph ever say anything equivalent to "anytime I speak from the pulpit, I speak as God's mouthpiece?"

As far as any of the Saints at the time were concerned, every single time he stood at the pulpit or acted in his capacity as President of the church, he spoke as God's mouthpiece. It's only been in the last decade that we've seen the apologists come up with the "speaking as a man" escape clause.

That's as accurate a claim as any you've ever made; it was Joseph who gave us that "escape clause," as you so dishonestly try to dismiss it.

But thank you for admitting that you can't document that Joseph ever claimed to be continuously speaking for God. Very well, can you document the (considerably lesser) claim that "any of the Saints at the time" thought that? Because I can provide a contemporary and hostile source that says the opposite.

Thank you for providing evidence in support of the fact that this was a plural marriage, not a "dirty lil affair" as some dirty lil minds prefer to assume.

More accurately, a "dirty lil affair" until the oh-so-convenient revelation to make it all appear legit.

Such is your dirty lil accusation. Unfortunately it only reflects upon your dirty lil mind.

A great many events have taken place without witnesses, collaboration or supporting evidence. Does that mean they didn't happen?

Please name those revelations. I'm not the least bit interested in "events". We're talking revelations from God, not some random event you fabricate out of your own mind. This is Joseph we're talking about, and his ever-so-active imagination.

Off the very top of my head: Section 4. I only mention that one because I happen to have it memorised. In fact the majority of Joseph's revelations were received without a visible manifestation witnessed by others.

There you are, Discord--unlimited license to cherry-pick. Just what you've always wanted!

A malicious and deliberately dishonest comparison. As you know, there is indeed no record of any revelation regarding the Priesthood ban. As you also know, there is a revelation regarding Plural Marriage: namely, Doctrine and Covenants Section 132. You are therefore blatantly lying when you claim that it "never was received."

A fabricated revelation, written on the spur of the moment while under pressure to cover his extramarital peccadillos,

According to whom? A notorious liar with a filthy mind.

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE FOR YOUR VILE ACCUSATION, DISCORD?

Because absent such evidence, the accusation is evidence of nothing but the vileness of the one making it.

with no heavenly messengers, no witnesses of any heavenly intervention, no hearing of God's voice... Sorry, Pahoran. You're going to have to do better than that.

I don't have to do anything, Discord. You are the accuser; you bear the burden of proof.

And you'd better make sure you get it right.

There are few sure facts in history, "Harmony," but here is one: whatever the source of Joseph's revelations, at least he believed that they were from God; and he at all times acted on them on that basis and no other.

You don't know that. And that is certainly not a fact of history. His claims are history; the veracity of his claim has never been verified.

Quit side-stepping. We're not talking about veracity, but his sincerity, which has been demonstrated far more convincingly than yours has or ever will be.

Just as only the very filthiest of minds--and that would include yours--leap to the untenable conclusion that Plural Marriage was just an excuse for him to give rein to his libido.

It is the only explanation that makes sense, given the parameters of the verifiable facts in evidence.

No, it's the only explanation that makes sense to you, given the limitations of your utterly low and filthy mind, and your comprehensively vast ignorance of LDS history.

And Oliver was in a position to know. You aren't.

See above.

[Your own experience in getting caught up in lies is clearly distorting your ability to understand Joseph.

I understand Joseph very well.

You may rest assured that he us quite beyond your comprehension, given that you simply cannot grasp the concept of anyone actually being motivated by religious belief.

You, on the other hand, want to put him on a pedestal and make him into something he wasn't. I much prefer his human weaknesses than your ficticious façade.

Said the cast-iron pot to the stainless steel kettle.

But you have to resort to that disgusting bit of subterfuge, because you cannot produce a single instance where Joseph invoked the name of God in support of a false assertion.

Every single time he spoke in public, he spoke as the president and prophet of the LDS church... God's mouthpiece. So when he lied, God lied.

Actually you lied--when you wrote that, that is.

sorry... no more time.

What a loss.

Regards,
Pahoran

User avatar
Jason Bourne
God
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm

Post by Jason Bourne »

Oh Pahoran. That is such a pile of horse manure! William Law, John Bennett, multiple others were all there, and they reached the same conclusion Oliver did! Are you so ignorant of church history that you missed the whole Nauvoo Expositor episode? Of course you aren't. You are ignoring it though.


William Law and John Bennett were not members of the Church till 8 or more years after the Fanny Alger incident. Bennett was not opposed to plural marriage at all but turned against the Church and Joseph in 1841 or 1842 when his unauthorized abuse of the practice was exposed. Pleading that Bennet concluded any thing awful about polygamy is silly as he was quite the despicable despot. Law may have been honestly dismayed and became dissaffected over polygamy. What he knew about Fanny is not clear but more likely then not he may not have been totally aware of her.

Jason

Post Reply