Posted on 11/13/2014 8:53:33 AM PST by greyfoxx39
As the new essay unintentionally hits the fan, Mormons are reeling and responding with their classic denials, claim of victim-hood and their typical repertoire of logical fallacies.
Soon, their favorite defender, the straw man argument will be in full regalia, culminating in a passive aggressive indirect platitude statement (such as doubt your doubts, you have to go around the BOM, etc.) in the next general conference to which members will cling to for life.
Already I have been contacted by members with their "straw man babies". So I have compiled a list of the quorum of the 15 straw men arguments that Mormons are making about this already:
1) It’s not that some girls were married “back then” at age 14. It’s that she was NOT married to Joseph, since he was married to another person who was not aware of the situation. 14 years old were by no means older back then. He had sex with his foster daughter, period. He has sex with the wives of men who he sent away on missions and made the women lie about their liaisons, full stop.
2) Joseph was forced to practice it by an angry angel. Joseph must have been one hell of seer to know to start practicing it before the revelation AND the angry angel came. It’s that none of the 40 women, suspiciously, including Emma, ever saw the angry angel. It's that he didn't have 40 wives, he had one, and 39 KNOWN affairs that he spend most of his time and efforts trying to conceal.
3) It’s not that the church is being "honest". It’s that there is a term for when before you are being honest, for 180+ years.
4) It’s not that some marriages MAY not have had sex, it’s that some did. It’s that some were married to other men and some were children. It’s that the ones that turned him down were destroyed and shunned. It’s that all were coerced or forced to practice it. It's that the church has, for the past 180 years, trying to collect, destroy, deny or file away any reference to these relationships being physical.
5) It’s not that it's OK because Emma accepted it and felt peace about it, it’s that Joseph got her best friend pregnant and did not tell Emma, and she in turn threw her pregnant friend down the stairs and she miscarried, maybe the peace came after that, or after she threw Fanny Algers on the street. Maybe the peace came after she left the church.
6) It’s not that people are demanding that Joseph smith be perfect, it’s that maybe a convicted con-man, polygamist, bank defrauder, fugitive, liar, pedophile, wife-thief, serial adulterer, plagiarist and murderer might not be the best person to trust with a story about an invisible gold book. it was Jesus when speaking on how to tell false prophets that said "by their fruits ye shall know them"...well, here's your sign.
7) It’s not that it was about raising children, or marrying a virgin, or being approved by the first wife, or about being more women than men or that it was OK after 1834…because NONE of those applied to Joseph.
8) It’s not that it is OK because “it was a long time ago”. It’s that it happened at all. It’s that those girls were children. It’s that it was a revelation and then he denied over and over and in May 1844 (he had 30+ wives by then) he offered to prove his accusers to be perjurers and to provide (falsified) affidavits.
9) It’s not OK because you have a testimony. It’s that your testimony is based on a fictitious character carefully created by the church media department. If you have a testimony, you don’t know the real Joseph.
10) It’s not about the church discontinuing the practice by the commandment of God. It was that they were forced to by the US government and therefore it shows that the church will change its history, doctrine, practices, and policies to make sure that the corporation survives.
11) It’s not that it is not practiced now. It’s that Gordon Hinckley lied on national TV a few years ago and said it was only practiced after they came out West and it was not doctrinal. Well, the thing is that an angel appearing 3 times is pretty doctrinal and so is The DOCTRINE and COVENANTS,which is canonized doctrine. It's that thousands of now ex-Mormons were excommunicated, attacked, gas-lighted, called names and shunned for even suggesting what these essays contain.
12) It’s not that it’s a fleck of history. It’s that thousands of children suffer in sexual relationships with adults in cults TODAY because of the practices and doctrines you cowardly failed to address, up until now, and which your founders taught as a requirement to enter heaven.
13) It’s not about polygamy; it’s about your church pretending that they are the defender of monogamous marriage, between one man and one woman as stating that this has always been so. It’s that you are stepping on the civil rights of others, just like you did those women, all in the name of religion. You can't claim those relationships to be marriages and at the same time, use your sudden love for the law, to deny other people their right to marry, so, pick a side.
14) It's not that the church has abandoned it. It’s that the concept of men forcing women and children into their bed using revelation is "a thing" in your doctrine. It’s about Warren Jeffs being JUST like Joseph Smith. He did not die an innocent lamb at the hands of evil men, he died because he slept with children and other men's wives, he died because he violated masonic oaths, he died because when his adultery was exposed by his former close associate, whose wife he tried to shag, he destroyed the printing press. It's that men can be sealed to more than one woman TODAY in the temple and women can't do the same.
15) It is not that the media and world does not understand Mormonism; it’s that you don’t understand Mormonism.
Yes, they believe differently than you do. They're allowed to. Get over it.
Well, darn!
It’s not about polygamy;
Liberal democrats are the conservative enemy, causing great harm to our country.
Mormons generally, with exceptions like Harry Reid, are conservative, on our side and in fact participants here.
Theologically they are wrong.
The way they live and contribute to society is more positive than negative.
Olog has made good comments in this regard.
So, I think your analogy is flawed, but I also think your premise is flawed.
I don’t think many people post obsessive highly emotional threads about liberal Democrats. We post objective analytical criticisms not meant to drum up visceral responses but to engender rational objective thinking on which policies and philosophies are best for the country.
One more thing, re this:
“Funny how only Mormonism is defended in this common fashion.”
Whom do you think has defended Mormonism on this thread?
I don’t see anyone defending Mormonism.
I have heard of Mormon mass murders, though...
If your primary concern is for the temporal world, why are you posting in the RF where our primary concern is with the eternal?
LOL, we have seen that on the Rommney threads for years by guys taking on the thread all day long, fighting, hijacking, and arguing to defend him, "I'm not defending him".
This is the religion section of freerepublic.
Religion is the topic.
ALL: Note a few things that can be derived from this Mormon poster in just 13 words uttered:
1. He says "probably Isaac as well" because he likely knows (it's been pointed out before to him on FR) that Isaac's alleged "polygamy" status is NOWHERE to be found in the Bible...and it's solely based upon Joseph Smith erroneously saying so in Lds "scripture" -- Doctrine & Covenants 132:37...which Joseph Smith singlely wrote to convince his first wife, Emma, that all these extra lovers was dictated to him by his Mormon gods. (And yes, Smith uses "gods" plural in that very "revelation"...see vv. 19-20)
So what's QUITE telling here is that even Teppe the supposedly faithful Mormon doesn't take Joseph Smith at face value anymore! Here, D&C132:37 clearly tosses Isaac into the polygamy ring...and Teppe can only conclude it was a "probable" thing.
You see, Joseph Smith did& said so many unbelievable/disbelievable things that even the faithful wain!
2. The Book of Mormon uses anachronisms...for example, "church" is "ecclesia" ... Greek... and is found in the New Testament, written in Greek. Jesus first used that term in Matthew 18. But the Book of Mormon frequently uses the word in its alleged B.C. books.
Well, likewise, Teppe uses "Christianity" -- which essentially assumes a New Testament-timed Christ who came incarnated...and then says its founders were all Old Testament figures. (Go figure)
Then, if you take a look at the next 19 words by Teppe -- they too are of special interest: "You should probably find another religion. Obviously, God does not look at polygamy in the same way you do."
Why?
3. If you go to this thread, LDS.ORG Essay on Nauvoo Polygamy: What did Readers Expect? [LDS apologist on church admissions] -- and click on the original link written by a Mormon apologist from FAIR...Lds' foremost apologetics group...you will find Brian Hales saying:
"In lauding the Church’s effort to explain this difficult topic, some may assume that in defending the essay we are in fact defending polygamy. We are not. On earth, polygamy expands a man’s sexual and emotional opportunities as a husband as it simultaneously fragments a woman’s sexual and emotional opportunities as a wife. The practice is difficult to defend as anything but unfair and at times emotionally cruel...The essay explains that plural marriage was “an excruciating ordeal” for Emma...
So here the Mormon apologists are out there conceding polygamy is...
..."an excruciating ordeal" (note the word "excruciating" is tied to the word "crucifix")
..."unfair"
..."emotionally cruel"
...and then...on top of that...
...Hale adds:
"...some may assume that in defending the essay we are in fact defending polygamy. We are not."
Well, Brian...when you have Mormons like Teppe making comments like he does in this & other threads (& he's far from being the ONLY Mormon doing that)...
Imagine being at a debate & hearing such a command of such rhetoric from his lips!!! ROTFL :)
I don’t really pay much attention to which forum a post is in.
I do, though, think my reaction is within RF if one has to dissect it.
My comment is to the effectiveness of the presentation.
And about the anonymous writer’s spirit.
A lot of atheists or ex-religionists obsess and emotionally involve themselves in the object of their scorn.
I rather question whether the ex-Catholic who spends all his time and emotional and intellectual energy on the Catholic Church really has left the church rather than just changed the nature of his association.
Same for the Atheist obsessed with finding weird things in the Bible.
This seems like that sort of thing.
I see that YOU still have the memo; too!
|
Office of First President & Living Prophet®: February 2nd, 2014
URGENT! It's been noted there has been a DRASTIC falloff in the number of MORMONs who actually can (or will) engage in opposing ANTIs on FreeRepulic (spit!) I am forced to re-issue and old memo you all received about 3 years ago.
|
ifinnegan hasn't created an about page.
If religion is the topic it could have fooled mr.
It seems the topic is American history and about current sociology-political issues.
Still, i hear you and feel my responses are Within the Religion topic.
Getting a little personal there, aren't you? This IS the religion forum!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.