BoM Racism & Polygamy

[ttribe]

Seriously, settle down, I know you IRL, if I wanted I could say a lot more about you on here, but I won't. It was up for about 4 seconds and its information that anyone could find extremely easily. The purpose of this thread is to get you to think critically about marriage and how prophets could teach that monogamy is evil. Obviously its not working.

I'm not a sock puppet, but I like the image.

BTW anonymity on a forum like this isn't cowardice, but I'm sure you'd like to know who I am.

If you know me in real life, why is it you have come to the conclusion that I don't think about these issues critically?

[Redefined]

It isn't necessarily a source. It presents a defense and argument I find valid. And you can't lump FAIR into one big ball. There are separate presentations given by separate scholars at separate conferences. The racism article, for example, is by John Tvedtnes (M.A., Linguistic; M.A., Middle Eastern Studies). One shouldn't blow it off because it is at FAIR.

A FAIR article is just an opinion piece then. At best, to source them would be saying "based on this persons opinions, it can be concluded. . . ". Since it is suggested that FAIR articles are not infallible.

[Shipthebooks]

If you know me in real life, why is it you have come to the conclusion that I don't think about these issues critically?

Because you ask me a question like how I reconcile a belief in polygamy with Jacob 2 and OD 1. That shows a complete lack of critical thinking. If I have to reconcile that, then you'd have to reconcile D&C 132 with Jacob 2. My point is to highlight the contradictions in your beliefs, not to try and support my own.

[WalkerW]

So, you won't read FAIR, but you'll read websites like this or others like it? Your quotes are in the exact same order.

Nice one.

[Scottie]

Because you ask me a question like how I reconcile a belief in polygamy with Jacob 2 and OD 1. That shows a complete lack of critical thinking. If I have to reconcile that, then you'd have to reconcile D&C 132 with Jacob 2. My point is to highlight the contradictions in your beliefs, not to try and support my own.

Reconciling Jacob 2 and D&C 132 is apologetics 101.

[BlueDreams]

A FAIR article is just an opinion piece then. At best, to source them would be saying "based on this persons opinions, it can be concluded. . . ". Since it is suggested that FAIR articles are not infallible.

Which seems perfect in arguing against out of context quotes that are considered fallible as well.

Opinion for opinion, seems a reasonable balance to argument.

With luv,

BD

[ttribe]

Because you ask me a question like how I reconcile a belief in polygamy with Jacob 2 and OD 1. That shows a complete lack of critical thinking. If I have to reconcile that, then you'd have to reconcile D&C 132 with Jacob 2. My point is to highlight the contradictions in your beliefs, not to try and support my own.

Then you clearly didn't understand my question...which is evidenced by the fact that you attributed an opinion to me (polygamy is evil) that I don't hold. In order for your turnabout to work (and be proof of my supposed lack of critical thinking skills), then I would have to hold that opinion and express it. I said before, and will say again - D&C 132 is easily reconciled with Jacob 2 and OD 1, and vice versa. No amount of mental gymnastics would lead a reader (or thinker) to conclude either "polygamy is evil" or "monogamy is evil". But, hey, if you think setting up your straw man ("polygamy is evil") is fun, have at it.

[ttribe]

Reconciling Jacob 2 and D&C 132 is apologetics 101.

How was your wedding?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Never said that monogamy was ever declared evil in the scriptures.

Don't be dishonest, here are your words.

The above is supported by the prophets and scriptures, so yes, monogamy is evil

If it is not found in scriptures why would you say that "The scriptures say that monogamy is evil"?

Were is "monogamy is evil" found in the scriptures?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

How was your wedding?

I 2nd this.

[WalkerW]

A FAIR article is just an opinion piece then.

Most scholarship is opinion based on research.

At best, to source them would be saying "based on this persons opinions, it can be concluded. . . ".

I didn't provide the FAIRwiki article as sources of information. I provided it because it would make the same basic argument that I would. Saves me the trouble of typing it out.

That is why FAIRwiki articles are linked: Because someone has already dealt with this issue. One is expected to read it and then make a rebuttal.

It isn't the same as linking Wikipedia as your scholarly source.

Since it is suggested that FAIR articles are not infallible.

No one ever said otherwise.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So, you won't read FAIR, but you'll read websites like this or others like it? Your quotes are in the exact same order.

Nice one.

Pooned. Were is that picture you had the other day.

[Redefined]

Which seems perfect in arguing against out of context quotes that are considered fallible as well.

Opinion for opinion, seems a reasonable balance to argument.

With luv,

BD

I can agree to those terms. If people are just exchanging opinions, and a person wants to add in a third-party opinion as a source of their original opinion, and not to suggest they are substantiated in their opinion because of such and such article.

[Scottie]

How was your wedding?

Very nice, thank you!

Warning to all.... Make EXTRA sure nobody is in the hotel hot tub area before .... well, I'll leave it at that!!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Very nice, thank you!

Warning to all.... Make EXTRA sure nobody is in the hotel hot tub area before .... well, I'll leave it at that!!

TMI!!!!

[WalkerW]

Pooned. Were is that picture you had the other day.

Right here

[BlueDreams]

I can agree to those terms. If people are just exchanging opinions, and a person wants to add in a third-party opinion as a source of their original opinion, and not to suggest they are substantiated in their opinion because of such and such article.

When dealing with regurgitated arguments. Especially those that come from another supposed third party internet source themself, I'd still think it fair. Especialy since the only opinions of the guy's is along the lines of sarcastically repeating "monogamy is evil", "look, the church is obviously {fill in negative description here}", "I knoe you", and "your sources are crap because I like my crap better"

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

Warning to all.... Make EXTRA sure nobody is in the hotel hot tub area before .... well, I'll leave it at that!!

Yeah, that might be a good idea......

But congradulations!

With luv,

BD

[jwhitlock]

A FAIR article is just an opinion piece then. At best, to source them would be saying "based on this persons opinions, it can be concluded. . . ". Since it is suggested that FAIR articles are not infallible.

There is only one source that is totally infallible. All other sources range from close to infallible to "avoid at all costs". Hence, in looking at a source like FAIR, you have to determine its overall reliability and whether that level of reliability is acceptable or not. Dismissing a source because it is not "infallible" is actually not a particularly valid way of approaching things.

From an overall reliability standpoint, FAIR stands pretty high. Anti-Mormon sites generally are in the low end of the range. In any discussion, it's important to determine which sources one is going to accept as generally reliable; if those sources can't be agreed upon by both parties, then there's going to be no agreement in the discussion at hand.

I think quite a few people get into trouble when they don't understand this concept of overall reliability. If they get into a mentality that a source must be always right, in order to be acceptable, they end up being disappointed eventually by everything. The notion that FAIR can be dismissed because it may not be totally accurate in some things misses the point that it is mostly accurate and is valuable as a generally reliable source. The notion that prophets can be dismissed because they are imperfect individuals misses the point of their divine callings.

Not being infallible is a smoke screen used to rationalize rejection of sources that one does not want to accept.

[Redefined]

When dealing with regurgitated arguments. Especially those that come from another supposed third party internet source themself, I'd still think it fair. Especialy since the only opinions of the guy's is along the lines of sarcastically repeating "monogamy is evil", "look, the church is obviously {fill in negative description here}", "I knoe you", and "your sources are crap because I like my crap better"

With luv,

BD

Well, exactly, but that can go both ways. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was talking within the context of this thread alone for the use of FAIR as references.

[Redefined]

There is only one source that is totally infallible. All other sources range from close to infallible to "avoid at all costs". Hence, in looking at a source like FAIR, you have to determine its overall reliability and whether that level of reliability is acceptable or not. Dismissing a source because it is not "infallible" is actually not a particularly valid way of approaching things.

From an overall reliability standpoint, FAIR stands pretty high. Anti-Mormon sites generally are in the low end of the range. In any discussion, it's important to determine which sources one is going to accept as generally reliable; if those sources can't be agreed upon by both parties, then there's going to be no agreement in the discussion at hand.

I think quite a few people get into trouble when they don't understand this concept of overall reliability. If they get into a mentality that a source must be always right, in order to be acceptable, they end up being disappointed eventually by everything. The notion that FAIR can be dismissed because it may not be totally accurate in some things misses the point that it is mostly accurate and is valuable as a generally reliable source. The notion that prophets can be dismissed because they are imperfect individuals misses the point of their divine callings.

Not being infallible is a smoke screen used to rationalize rejection of sources that one does not want to accept.

I think I can pretty much solve the problem of "base sources" that will be agreeable to everyone. Mormons stay away from sourcing to the likes of FAIR article, and Non-Mormons stay away from sourcing to the likes of MormonThink articles. If FAIR or MormonThink have articles that use references you feel are valid, use those references to form your comment.

[BlueDreams]

Well, exactly, but that can go both ways. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was talking within the context of this thread alone for the use of FAIR as references.

Love, it's preferred that it remain within the context of the thread alone. it would be weird for me to start pulling up other issues I might have with people arguing styles from a completely unrelated thread into this one when the two aren't related.

With luv,

BD

[WalkerW]

Well, exactly, but that can go both ways. I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I was talking within the context of this thread alone for the use of FAIR as references.

Just keep in mind that FAIRwiki articles are usually provided because one thinks it makes a good, apologetic argument. It would be like someone referencing JP Holding's site or a blog because they agree with their position. When you started demanding sources for information, then we move beyond the mere arguments and therefore beyond FAIRwiki.

But like I said, many of the presentations at FAIR are done by scholars (Daniel C. Peterson, David Bokovoy, John Gee, etc.) which should be taken into consideration. And most of them have many, many sources cited that can be checked.

[jwhitlock]

I think I can pretty much solve the problem of "base sources" that will be agreeable to everyone. Mormons stay away from sourcing to the likes of FAIR article, and Non-Mormons stay away from sourcing to the likes of MormonThink articles. If FAIR or MormonThink have articles that use references you feel are valid, use those references to form your comment.

And what sources does that leave that both sides can agree upon?

[Redefined]

Love, it's preferred that it remain within the context of the thread alone. it would be weird for me to start pulling up other issues I might have with people arguing styles from a completely unrelated thread into this one when the two aren't related.

With luv,

BD

My original statement in that addressed such in this thread was the response:

"I think that is a fair approach to FAIR. . .tee hee hee. Only because I've been told before in this forum, members say that they don't live and die by FAIR. . . so I say that it can't be taken as a valid source, if they sometimes don't even agree with it as a source."

Which demonstrated that I wasn't talking about this thread in particular. In the course of WalkerW addressing this, it became a separate argument, then the particular topic was.