And the American law of monogamy was irrelevant before Utah was up for statehood?
"It's foundational view of God is, quite simply, a standing insult to Divine dignity."
This I gotta see.
Try this.
Also, the biblical contradiction you mentioned.
Compare Isaiah 43:10-11 to the link above.
The ironic thing is I've lost interest in defending Mormonism - I barely attend church anymore and then people like you invariably show up and spout idiotic denunciations oozing self-righteous hypocrisy which drags me back into Mormonism all over again. Thanks a lot!
I have yet to see a Mormon who could hear any criticism of his religion without replying with personal invective, while simultaneously accusing the non-Mormon of personal invective. The fact that you guys, in my experience, always attribute any disagreement to personal animus makes me suspect your own religion is based on animus toward everyone outside your "tribe" and you simply lack the imagination to conceive of differing motives in others.
2)This is incredible. One thing LDS missionaries immediately learn is that it's almost pointless to have discussions with anti-Mormon hysterics. They won't actually debate things or assemble their litany of contentions into a coherent argument; instead, they just call Mormons names. And now you come to the forum and all you're doing is calling us names.
Which reconfirms the point I made above.
I said negative things about Joseph Smith -- and this is no less than any non-Mormon does implicitly by not being Mormon. If Mormonism is untrue (and it is) then either Joseph Smith was a conscious fraud or he had dealings with unclean spirits. Likewise for my criticism of the religion in general. I suppose the underwear comment is a matter of taste, but I can't imagine many people disagreeing.
Which names did I call you? (That is, a group to which you belong, since you said "us" -- Joe Smith will not count because you’re not Joe Smith.) If that’s ALL I’m doing, surely you can find ONE example..
But then, if calling names is all I did, I must not have noted that Mormonism contradicts the Bible, history, science, archeology, common sense, and itself. If I did say that stuff, I would think you would be honor-bound to admit your error.
In other words, you're shrieking like a liberal. Are you sure you wouldn't be more comfortable here? You simply radiate Christlike love. If screaming like a bayoneted banshee is the method you seek to convert Mormons to your faith, I can save you a lot of time and energy.
If you’re reduced to this level, you’re better off if you just stop typing.
OK, since all you've done is cite the King Follett Discourse without EXPLAINING why you find it so distasteful; here's a page containing several hundred pages of my PERSONAL writings concerning the LDS concept of God the Father:
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id26.htm
There's 18 chapters and several hundred references. Go nuts.
If Second Isaiah's "YHWH's challenge to the false gods" is all you can cite (and only one of the four Second Isaiah passages and none of the other 38 passages commonly used against Mormonism); I suggest you do a hell of a lot more research before making yourself look foolish.
See
http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id164.htm
If you can refute them; then we're in business. Otherwise try not to be so arrogant in the future. These are my own writings. I don't need to rely upon the works of others to validate my position.
It has been my experience over nearly 20 years of debating that no Baptist has ever been able to justify their opposition to Mormonism. This is ESPECIALLY true with those who have minimal knowledge of what the Bible really teaches.
I've noticed those who know it the least are often those who are the most vocal about their expertise and how everyone who disagrees with them are wrong.
Edward Watson and I must have gotten our points across effectively, judging by your response.
Let's take it from the top. Your first point was that the American law of monogamy was relevant to Utah. When Utah was first settled by the pioneers, the land was part of Mexico and thus outside American jurisdiction. It was in preparation for admission to the Union that polygamy was renounced in the Utah territory.
Also, talk about anticlimactic! When I clicked on the link you provided, I was expecting the usual risible assertions that Mormons have horns and such. What I found instead was a contemplative address about the nature of God. How scandalous.
I think you misunderstand the meaning of personal invective. Personal invective involves ad hominem attacks such as "son of a whore." I called you one name ("babycakes") and levied a few factually-based charges, none of which were ad hominem. I accused you of shrieking (you were), making incoherent, sweeping attacks (you did), being an "anti-Mormon hysteric" (you are) and "radiating Christlike love" in your address (you didn't). These are not ad hominem attacks and thus do not qualify as personal invective, aside from the "babycakes" comment.
On the other hand, you have referred to us as blasphemers, adulterers, perverts, con-men, a "tribe" of savages, and wearers of ugly underwear. How much lower can you get? And, yes, the attacks on Joseph Smith were meant as attacks for all Mormons. You began the paragraph with a sweeping attack on the religion, morphed it into a smear on its founder, and jumped back to "they" in the underwear comment. Your intention is crystal clear. Even if I hypothetically conceded that your attacks on Joseph Smith are irrelevant, you have still called us blasphemers, tribesmen, and wearers of ugly underwear. This is bottom-feeding, personal invective of the worst kind.
"I have yet to see a Mormon who could hear any criticism of his religion without replying with personal invective, while simultaneously accusing the non-Mormon of personal invective."
Now I'll admit that I don't fit the usual profile of the Mormon milquetoast. However, you obviously haven't dealt with large numbers of Mormon missionaries. Having been one myself, the typical reaction to spluttering attacks is first calm, reasoned responses, and if that fails, we turn our backs and leave. I didn't always succeed in that regard when I was a missionary, but almost all of my companions sure did. Neither Edward Watson nor I, as I recall, ever attacked the Baptist faith in any of our postings.
"I said negative things about Joseph Smith -- and this is no less than any non-Mormon does implicitly by not being Mormon."
Huh? This qualifies as a coherent argument?
"I suppose the underwear comment is a matter of taste, but I can't imagine many people disagreeing."
Ya think? Speak for yourself, buster.
"I must not have noted that Mormonism contradicts the Bible, history, science, archeology, common sense, and itself."
According to A.J. Armitage. I could offer a long, carefully reasoned tribute limning exactly how the LDS faith completely fits the Bible, history, science, archaeology, and common sense, but then you would simply contrast it with the Bible, history, science, archaeology and common sense according to A.J. Armitage. That would be a vicious cycle not worth taking a ride on.
Last but not least, you missed and completely ignored a chief point of contention in my earlier response. Regardless of your opinions, your methods of conversion are not going to work. Launching into diatribes lambasting the LDS faith is not going to gain any conversions. My best friend who served an LDS mission in Georgia didn't baptize twenty Baptists into the LDS church by means of slamming the Baptist faith. Mormons admire Baptists and the many strong people of faith who worship in your churches, and the sound moral principles you espouse. We build on that knowledge in constructive ways. I like most of the Baptists I have met, as you can see from an earlier post on the thread.
Think about it. It's time to alter your methods, and perhaps even your attitudes. I would expect a person of faith to utilize more Christlike attributes, and to show more class. However, as a missionary in Hong Kong, I met many supposed people of faith for whom showing class, as far as religious tolerance is concerned, would be like expecting a crocodile to purr. I hope you don't fit that mold.
I'll take the last word on this one.
-srm913