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
You're already starting to claim victory, eh? It reminds me of a Mormon missionary I talked to who declaired that I "admitted" I followed a false church. I had, of course, done no such thing. I suppose he was just so driven up against the walk he decided to throw something bizarre out there.
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.
I never said that. Polygamy began before the migration to Utah.
Also, I'm sure Mexico had monogamy laws.
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.
Considering that I was challenged to back up something I had said about the Mormon conception of God, I can hardly think of a more appropriate answer than a link to a Mormon primary source. Contemplative or not, the things it says about God are indeed 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.
You're demanding a more generous standard for yourself than you're willing to grant me. No, your charges were not "factually based".
I accused you of shrieking (you were)
I was typing.
making incoherent, sweeping attacks (you did)
Either you're raving and you don't even care if your attacks bear any relation to what I've said, or you have your own private definition of coherence.
being an "anti-Mormon hysteric" (you are)
Based on what I've read, I'd think I'm much calmer than you guys are.
and "radiating Christlike love" in your address (you didn't).
"Woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees" is Christlike love... toward everyone who might be taken in if not warned.
These are not ad hominem attacks and thus do not qualify as personal invective, aside from the "babycakes" comment.
Your #62 answers none of my substantive contentions (in fact, denied they existed just after quoting them). Instead, the entire thing was devoted to discussing me. But that's a "calm, reasoned response", right?
On the other hand, you have referred to us as blasphemers
Do you say that God was once a man?
adulterers, perverts, con-men,
This is simply dishonest. I called Joseph Smith those things. Well, actually I didn't call him an adulterer (I just did a word search on the thread, and no form of the word appears in any of my previous posts), although he was; even if I were to grant that polygamy is acceptable in our day as a general proposition, Smith vowed to forsake all others as long as both he and Emma were alive.
I did not say all Mormons are those things, nor can anything I say be fairly taken to imply it.
a "tribe" of savages
I said:
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.
Now were did "of savages" come from? For that matter, if "tribe" is an insult, then what would that mean for actual tribe members such as American Indians and Jews?
and wearers of ugly underwear.
That wasn't intended entirely seriously, but hysterical, shrieking, can't-get-any-lower, bottom feeding, bigoted, foolish Baptists should always be taken the worst possible way, unlike Mormons who never insult anyone.
How much lower can you get?
Well, I could always become a Mormon.
And, yes, the attacks on Joseph Smith were meant as attacks for all Mormons.
Even if I assume the most reasonable interpretation of this (a charity that has not been extended to me) your claim that I called Mormons perverts, etc., is still a lie. All you can get from what I said is that you're the deluded followers of a con-man who was a pervert.
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.
A smear? The fact is, his personal character was incompatible with his claim to be a prophet of God. Pointing this out is FACT, regardless of your personal reaction.
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.
I've dealt with more Mormons than you think. And they were all as rude as you.
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.
In my experience, they make wierd comments (like the total non-sequiter I mentioned above) in order to divert the conversation. When that fails they assert that they know the BoM is true, they know this, they know that, as if their personal word proved anything.
Neither Edward Watson nor I, as I recall, ever attacked the Baptist faith in any of our postings.
Instead, you've just attacked the Baptist, which is typical M.O.
"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?
Yes, it does.
You quoted it out of context. You accused me of name-calling. I answered:
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. [I neglected to mention he could have been crazy.]
Your failure of reading conprehension is not my problem, but I'll go ahead and type this slowly for your benefit: by not being Mormon, non-Mormons act on the supposition that Mormonism is false. If Mormonism is false, Joseph Smith was not a prophet. If he was not a prophet, one of several highly negative things must be true of him. Thus, not being Mormon necessarily implies something uncomplimentary about the character of Joseph Smith.
"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.
Two points.
1) The presentation of the quotation from me is dishonest. Context. You said, "all you're doing is calling us names." My answer contained the above-quoted line, which is itself a near-verbatim reference to #54. I didn't go into detail, but I did mention all those things, which is something other than calling names.
2) What you've said is relativist.
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.
YOU lecturing someone about being Christlike and having class? Beware of the measure ye mete.
Watson seems to expect me to reply to a book. Maybe if I don't have anything better to do I'll make a few points relating to it tomorrow.