BoM Racism & Polygamy

[Redefined]

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.

I'm sure opinions from respectable persons can be found on both sides of the discussion, and I'm sure many of them are well researched.

[Redefined]

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

I've used sources such as LDS.org before. . . .and again the references given in these opinion pieces had to have come from somewhere.

[ttribe]

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!!

[selek]

I wasn't even thinking of Walker.

I really didn't think you were, but I wanted to be absolutely clear.

If it's not actually a CARM ite, there are a number of other suspects...

[Vance]

My point is to highlight the contradictions in your beliefs, not to try and support my own.

This is an expression of laziness. Why? Because there are A LOT MORE CONTRADICTIONS in your beliefs than in ours. It is a lot easier to highlight our few than your many.

[ttribe]

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

It is when you are outing information about other people that you are not telling about yourself. Nevertheless, if you are so sure of yourself, you should have no problem sending me an e-mail or PM telling me who you are to put things on an even keel.

[Vance]

The purpose of this thread is to get you to think critically . . .

Physician, heal thyself.

[Scottie]

This is an expression of laziness. Why? Because there are A LOT MORE CONTRADICTIONS in your beliefs than in ours. It is a lot easier to highlight our few than your many.

So... wait... you think it's okay that there are contradictions in your beliefs simply because there are more contradictions in ship's beliefs??

The fact that there are contradictions AT ALL should cause some serious questioning.

[ttribe]

So... wait... you think it's okay that there are contradictions in your beliefs simply because there are more contradictions in ship's beliefs??

The fact that there are contradictions AT ALL should cause some serious questioning.

I don't think that's what Vance was saying.

[jwhitlock]

The fact that there are contradictions AT ALL should cause some serious questioning.

Do you actually believe that anyone's belief system is perfect?

We don't.

Perhaps that's why the biblical inerrancy crowd stands on such thin ice.

[Calm]

I can't click on anything from FAIR until the Q15 makes an official declaration stating that FAIR is official doctrine, then I'll consider it. I'd suggest you read Approaching Mormon Doctrine so as not to misrepresent the doctrines of the church.

If you were to look at FAIR, you would see that most of their material on this issue is from church leaders.

If you can go to other sites who cherry pick quotes for you and use them, why can't you read FAIR which gathers together quite a few quotes as well, though they are better imo in providing correct context and not leaving out some essential phrase, etc.?

[Vance]

So... wait... you think it's okay that there are contradictions in your beliefs simply because there are more contradictions in ship's beliefs??

The fact that there are contradictions AT ALL should cause some serious questioning.

The few contradictions that exist in my beliefs, exist in the minds of its detractors.

Edited to add: I personally haven't found any.

[Scottie]

Do you actually believe that anyone's belief system is perfect?

We don't.

Perhaps that's why the biblical inerrancy crowd stands on such thin ice.

There is "perfect", which no, I don't believe that anyone's belief system should be perfect.

Then there is glaring and massive contradiction, almost to the point of being ridiculous. This is shown in SPADES in Mormonism. Just because the apologists have coined the phrase "speaking as man" doesn't mean a past prophet was speaking as a man. You have no way of knowing that and neither do I. You cannot say that any given contradiction is any less prophetic than I can say it was.

The simple fact is that there are a TON of contradictions in Mormonism. This isn't a case of demanding perfection on trite points. This is a case of a lot of inconsistency on VERY important matters.

[Scottie]

The few contradictions that exist in my beliefs, exist in the minds of its detractors.

Why? I'm genuinely curious why you have chosen to disregard the contradictions? It's actually dishonest to make such a statement. The FACT is that there are contradictions. Now, you may have reconciled those contradictions, but to claim they don't exist is nothing but plain dishonesty.

It's like critics who claim there isn't one shred of evidence for the BoM. I call them out on their dishonesty too.

[Nemesis]

Reconciling scriptures isn't part of the Lord's plan. I have a spiritual manifestation and a confirmation through the Spirit that monogamy is evil, and I won't listen to anyone who says otherwise until the Spirit tells me otherwise.

Tim - does DW have any idea how much time you spend on here? I mean seriously dude, 5800 posts and counting?

Goodbye expose's sockpuppet. Maybe the people who's connection you are using to harass the board posters here would be interested in what you are doing. Sign up here again and you might just find out.

Nemesis

[Vance]

Why?

I can only speculate as to why the contradictions exist in the minds of detractors. You would have to ask them.

I'm genuinely curious why you have chosen to disregard the contradictions?

I am not a mind reader. Besides I personally don't see any.

It's actually dishonest to make such a statement.

Could you explain how?

The FACT is that there are contradictions.

Oh, please share.

Now, you may have reconciled those contradictions, but to claim they don't exist is nothing but plain dishonesty.

If I have reconciled them, then they are no longer contradictions to me.

It's like critics who claim there isn't one shred of evidence for the BoM. I call them out on their dishonesty too.

Bully for you.

[jwhitlock]

There is "perfect", which no, I don't believe that anyone's belief system should be perfect.

Glad to hear it. That's a large step down the path of reality.

Then there is glaring and massive contradiction, almost to the point of being ridiculous. This is shown in SPADES in Mormonism. Just because the apologists have coined the phrase "speaking as man" doesn't mean a past prophet was speaking as a man. You have no way of knowing that and neither do I. You cannot say that any given contradiction is any less prophetic than I can say it was.

The simple fact is that there are a TON of contradictions in Mormonism. This isn't a case of demanding perfection on trite points. This is a case of a lot of inconsistency on VERY important matters.

That's simply because you choose to accept the conclusions of anti-Mormon evidence as authoritative, over the rather "overwhelming" counter-evidence that supports the claims of the Church.

It's not "simple fact". It's your simple opinion. Unfortunately, the sources of your "massive contradiction" are not of very high quality, as a rule.

I'll note one other thing. The use of hyperbole in making your point doesn't do much from a credibility standpoint. Phrases such as "glaring and massive contradiction", and "almost to the point of being ridiculous" would be rightly questioned by any person who is familiar with the Church to some extent. The sources you seem to be using as authoritative are known for using that kind of unsubstantiated hype; they don't do anything to mark your argument as particularly strong.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Goodbye expose's sockpuppet. Maybe the people who's connection you are using to harass the board posters here would be interested in what you are doing. Sign up here again and you might just find out.

Nemesis

Pooned. It was too obvious that Shipwreck was a sock puppet.

[ttribe]

Pooned. It was too obvious that Shipwreck was a sock puppet.

Banned before I could get an answer about how this person supposedly knows me IRL.

[gmormon]

How was your wedding?

The real question is what is he doing online here during his honeymoon

[selek]

Ha!

Expose was my second choice...

...though I do wonder how he came up with that last screen name.

Nemesis,

I can't help but wonder- given Expose's morbid and creepifying turn towards cyber-stalking- if it wouldn't be a good idea to notify law enforcement alongside the ISP.

There was enough "I know where you live" menace implied that the situation should not be taken lightly.

Today's outrages were also, after all, a part of an escalating pattern of offensive/abusive behavior on the part of that particular posters...

[handys003]

Goodbye expose's sockpuppet. Maybe the people who's connection you are using to harass the board posters here would be interested in what you are doing. Sign up here again and you might just find out.

Nemesis

Dang it Nemesis you banned him before I could get my 2 cents worth! Anyhow Ship should you look at this topic somehow here's just a little point. Your absurdity to monogamy is evil using the past Presidents analogy to the Romans is just pathetic. Actually there were instances of Roman Emperors practicing polygamy not to just their wives, but to little boys, there favorite pets. They were Gods in their society and to not have their busts (stone portraits) in a Roman home was considered a sin and subject to death. Heck your were considered to be an atheist i.e.. as a Christian or another faith because you did not worship the God of Rome! just to even compare anything sanctified by the Lord toward the Roman way of life is foolish. Your talking about a period of people who butchered for pleasure, slavery, adultery on a massive scale, pedophile behavior with young boys and girls. Emperor Claudius was married but married young boys and then threw them off the cliff for his pleasure. Just plain good old debauchery at it's best. Yeah good example of why monogamy is evil.

[Mordecai]

Just because the apologists have coined the phrase "speaking as man" doesn't mean a past prophet was speaking as a man. You have no way of knowing that and neither do I. You cannot say that any given contradiction is any less prophetic than I can say it was.

The simple fact is that there are a TON of contradictions in Mormonism. This isn't a case of demanding perfection on trite points. This is a case of a lot of inconsistency on VERY important matters.

It's true that there is no way to know when a prophet is speaking as a man or a prophet, other than through revelation and canonization. If a contradiction occurs between what a prophet says and another prophet says, the only way to find the truth is proof or prayer. So what? Since the point of the Church is salvation, and we have a canon for that, who cares if there is confusion on some other points? Some people take their eye off the ball and put their faith in men. This can be a mistake, even when said men are prophets.

[Olavarria]

Yes, another thread on racism in the Book of Mormon and polygamy.

I have made this because I don't want Ship's other thread to go off topic and not have his OP answered.

So, here are some things brought up. Monogamy is evil:

He also says that 2 Nephi 5 is really racist.

Thoughts.

I tend to agree with most of what was tought about plural marriage, during the 1800's.

I don't see what the big deal is....