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.
Harry seems pretty creepy to me and certainly a product of the Vegas mob.
Now BJ Clinton, he would be a fun neighbor LOL
Putin isn’t Muslim or a suicide bomber either, I don’t understand what Islam has to do with Americans and Mormonism and American history in the context of this thread?
What is your point in talking about Islam to disrupt a thread on Mormonism in America, and one of the causes of the early Republican party?
Crooked is one thing; nihilistic is another.
If Catholic history were to be dredged up, there would be lots of animosity caused in that respect.
Your mind-reading here is false, and it appears that you are "casting the first stone" by accusing fellow FReepers of being "non-Christian". Hardly a "Christian" act by YOU!
Disruptive how? An opinion is disruptive?
Another attempt to disrupt this thread...Narses, you may want to address this comment.
OK fine; I’ll withdraw. My apologies.
Your mind-reading here is false, and it appears that you are “casting the first stone” by accusing fellow FReepers of being “non-Christian”. Hardly a “Christian” act by YOU!
And remember, judge not, lest ye be judged.
Well, Cuban leaf is accurate as far as I am concerned. I certainly went through a period of many years as athiest/agnostic before coming to Christ.
You keep bringing up Islam, over and over on this thread about Joseph Smith and America and Mormonism.
What is your point in talking about Islam to disrupt a thread on Mormonism in America, and one of the causes of the early Republican party?
as for the Caliphate - without boring everyone....Smiths move out west was for what? - clean air?
no - he wanted to establish a little kingdom of his own....much akin to a caliphate
Mountain Meadow was simply an attack party of jihadists
While members of the church worship and acknowledge the divinity of Jesus Christ, yet they should revere Joseph Smith.From the tender age of 14 his purpose, growing ever more fixed as his life progressed, was to do the will of God and to reestablish on earth Christ's church, the priesthood of God, and all attendant ordinances and covenants necessary for the salvation of mankind.As the Doctrine and Covenants affirms, "Joseph Smith, the Prophet and Seer of the Lord, has done more, save Jesus only, for the salvation of men in this world, than any other man that ever lived in it."
Derangement syndrome."
The comments here, eg I am making straw men arguments, are examples of the psychopathology.
Ahh, the "old indirect ad hominem" towards posters you disagree with pathology.
Let's not debate the content of the material, but attack the character of the posters.
Well done! /s
“Your mind-reading here is false, and it appears that you are “casting the first stone” by accusing fellow FReepers of being “non-Christian”. Hardly a “Christian” act by YOU! “
You are saying anonymous exmormon is a freeper?
I asked earlier if it was you.
Your a good example of the weirdness.
You say: “Let’s not debate the content of the material, but attack the character of the posters.”
What is there to debate? Nothing. It’s factual as far as I know.
You don’t make sense.
Since Christianity was agrguably started by polygamists, Abraham, Jacob (probably Isaac as well),
You should probably find another religion.
Obviously, God does not look at polygamy in the same way you do.
Christianity was agrguably started by polygamists
Really?
What you say has merit, I would add that many ex-mormons not only go agnostic, they turn full blown atheist.
They attack the Christian faith in general as a result of the lies the LDS taught to them from childhood.
Others just begin to wander in the wilderness as a result of “being burned”.
Extend this parallel & you have "Given the choice of having a next door neighbor to be a liberal Democrat, Islamic, or a Son of Obama, I'm taking the liberal Democrat every day of the week."
And the extended parallel would be, of course, in the very context of a thread where the attacks come aimed at a Freeper who posted a thread about Liberal Democrats...with another FREEPER claiming that the person is "obsessed" about liberal Democrats because he keeps posting threads about them.
ALL: What you NEVER see on FR...is these same arguments used to go after people who post on liberal Dems (they are never called "obsessed" with them) or Islam (they are never called obsessed with Muslims if they post a few threads a month about Islam).
Funny how only Mormonism is defended in this common fashion.
Iow, either these posters are inconsistently religiously hypocritical...you don't find them going after others posting on Islam, Catholicism, or protestantism...or, their arguments readily breakdown because if you apply them to many other topics discussed here on FR forums, nobody takes that angle to go on the offensive against them.
Oh, I’m sorry...
Does “discuss” vs. “debate” work better for you?
Color me concerned about what you think about my “wierdness”. Not.
Typical troll...
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.