Welcome Message

[RLBaty]

My answer is "yes" to 2-5.

To 1 it is: more likely that Joseph Smith read the parts of the bible about polygamous marriages, and the counsel in the Book of Mormon condemning it and asked God about the apparent discrepancy, to which Heavenly Father revealed that he (Joseph Smith) was one called to do it --- therefore making it approved.

But if you mean that..., my answer would be "yes".

Thanks for your participation.

I'll put you down with the others as "yes" to all 5.

Sincerely,

Robert Baty

[volgadon]

I will note your efforts and, unless I am mistaken, your refusal to simply answer "yes" or "no" to those 5 simple, historic, factual claims posted to the official LDS Church website.

It is my opinion that the claims are so framed such that a Mormon, or anyone else, can answer "yes" and/or "no" to each claim and that Mormons in particular have a position regarding each (e.g., either "yes" and/or "no").

As I have noted, one of the utilitarian purposes of the poll is to observe the lengths Mormons will go to in order to evade simply "giving an answer" on these matters; matters important enough to have been presented as part of the official LDS Church history.

Thanks for the demonstration.

Now, is there anyone else here that wishes to participate; maybe even "give an answer"?

In other words, the point of your poll is to gather any result on which you can place a negative spin. This gives you another means with which to beat Mormons over the head. If people thought you even somewhat sincerely interested in honest dialogue, then more would take your poll.

Edited July 2, 2012 by volgadon

[blackstrap]

how do you know that bonifide mormons are answering your poll? Must one swear an affadavit?

[RLBaty]

In other words, the point of your poll is to gather any result which you can put a negative spin on. This gives you something else with which to beat Mormons over the head. If people thought you even somewhat sincerely interested in honest dialogue, then more would take your poll.

You seem to present the presumptive view so often expressed by Mormons when trying to deal with their opposition.

Thanks for the demonstration.

There are many utilitarian purposes to the poll. As I noted earlier; to each his own!

As far as I am concerned, your allegations are false.

Why not try a little honest dialogue by first "giving an answer" to the 5 simple, factual, historic claims posted to the official LDS Church website and, if you have an honest interest in these matters, we can chat about it.

You might also search the history of the poll and my interests therein to further educate yourself on things about which you apparently are quite UNinformed (uh oh, I'm starting to sound like a Mormon, aren't I).

As far as answering the questions, my honesty or lack thereof, and my purposes, or lack thereof are quite irrelevant.

Mormons either believe the claims their church makes, or they don't.

They are either willing to tell, or they aren't.

I think maybe some Mormons believe those claims and, for reasons already given elsewhere (check them out), some don't.

Will the Mormons talk?

That's part of what the exercise is all about.

The Internet screams, "Ask a Mormon"!

I am!

Sincerely,

Robert Baty

[volgadon]

I see three outcomes to the poll, perhaps there are more.

1. If most people answer in the positive, you can say look how many Mormons believe in such horrible behaviour!
   
2. If most people answer in the negative, you can say look how many Mormons lie about their history!
   
3. If most people decline to answer, you can say look how many Mormons evade the facts!
   

In other words, it seems like you will twist whatever outcome to suit your agenda, so why should anyone be bothered to answer?

[RLBaty]

how do you know that bonifide mormons are answering your poll? Must one swear an affadavit?

Except for the anonymous poster here, I think I have good reason to believe that the other 5 participants are bonafide Mormons.

Their names are listed with the poll results on my list.

It's more than just names; they have an Internet history.

That's one of the down sides of anonymity, depending on your perspective.

Anonymous participants' answers will not receive the same consideration as those known Mormons.

That's life!

Sincerely,

Robert Baty

[volgadon]

They are either willing to tell, or they aren't.

We are either inclined to vote in a trolling poll, or we aren't.

[RLBaty]

I see three outcomes to the poll, perhaps there are more.

1. If most people answer in the positive, you can say look how many Mormons believe in such horrible behaviour!
   
2. If most people answer in the negative, you can say look how many Mormons lie about their history!
   
3. If most people decline to answer, you can say look how many Mormons evade the facts!
   

In other words, it seems like you will twist whatever outcome to suit your agenda, so why should anyone be bothered to answer?

That's false, but it is the sort of thing that is become quite an obvious tactic of evasion from Mormon sources, in my experience.

Would you like to give me your answer to the poll questions?

Would you actually like to discuss the legitimate, utilitarian purposes of the poll?

SIncerely,

Robert Baty

[volgadon]

Would you actually like to discuss the legitimate, utilitarian purposes of the poll?

If there are any, do please share.

[volgadon]

I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. I did so this time as well, but then I went to your yahoo group.

[RLBaty]

I read somewhere that:

> The Purpose of Mormon Dialogue

>

> People of all faiths are welcome to engage

> in gentlemanly discussion about topics

> related to The Church of Jesus Christ of

> Latter-day Saints.

That's part of why I signed up after seeing a Mormon promoting the list on the Internet in response to a news article he was otherwise critical of. He indicated this was something like "the lion's den" as if to challenge critics to make their appearance.

Ha! I notice that none here have yet to requite my love and make their appearance at my place.

Sincerely,

Robert Baty

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

[bluebell]

I will note your efforts and, unless I am mistaken, your refusal to simply answer "yes" or "no" to those 5 simple, historic, factual claims posted to the official LDS Church website.

It's been noted that you noted it.

[RLBaty]

It's been noted that you noted it.

I have noted that you have noted that I noted your antics in refusing to participate in the poll.

SIncerely,

Robert Baty

[RLBaty]

I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. I did so this time as well, but then I went to your yahoo group.

Did you happen to notice that Ray Ausban just posted a note to my list.

He's a bonafide Mormon, as far as I can tell.

He came over from The Christian Post.

He puts y'all to shame.

Here's a link direct to his latest message to which I will be responding shortly:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/27615

Sincerely,

Robert Baty

[bluebell]

I have noted that you have noted that I noted your antics in refusing to participate in the poll.

SIncerely,

Robert Baty

I have noted that your definition of the word 'antics' is messed up.

I'm glad to go on record as not having participated in your poll though, messed up definition of 'antics' not withstanding. History will vindicate me!

[Garden Girl]

Baty's tone of his posts and his demand for a "simple yes or no" answer to his questions is enough to turn me off of any interest in participating... not all questions can be answered with a simple yes or no (I could probably do so depending on how the questions are worded, but I have little hope that Baty is truly interested in an open dialog as yes or no does not foster dialog)... his agenda is apparent just by his tone and attitude.

All of us who participate regularly here have had numerous open, honest discussions with non-members and critics alike on a wide variety of church doctrine and related issues.

As for being anonymous... I don't see what my real name would add to any discussion... I don't post my real name anywhere on the internet unless I am very sure of the people involved... and I see no reason to post my name for Baty.

GG

[RLBaty]

I have noted that your definition of the word 'antics' is messed up.

I'm glad to go on record as not having participated in your poll though, messed up definition of 'antics' not withstanding. History will vindicate me!

NOPE!

I don't think history is going to be vindicating you.

But it will vindicate my analysis of such antics as you display in evading engaging in open, honest discussion of these important, public issues.

Sincerely,

Robert Baty

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

[RLBaty]

Baty's tone of his posts and his demand for a "simple yes or no" answer to his questions is enough to turn me off of any interest in participating... not all questions can be answered with a simple yes or no (I could probably do so depending on how the questions are worded, but I have little hope that Baty is truly interested in an open dialog as yes or no does not foster dialog)... his agenda is apparent just by his tone and attitude.

All of us who participate regularly here have had numerous open, honest discussions with non-members and critics alike on a wide variety of church doctrine and related issues.

As for being anonymous... I don't see what my real name would add to any discussion... I don't post my real name anywhere on the internet unless I am very sure of the people involved... and I see no reason to post my name for Baty.

GG

I have already dealt with those issues, but will add this to encourage the poster to either "give an answer" or continue his/her run.

The claims are clearly enough stated, from the official LDS Church website that one, especially a Mormon, should be able to easily answer "yes" or "no" to each claim indicating whether or not they believe the claims made on the LDS Church webpage.

If you don't think so, we can discuss your problem. Other Mormons have had no such problem in answering, where they have not been like so many others and played these "Mormon Games" in refusing to "give an answer".

Anonymity has its advantages; particularly in playing Internet games such as has been going on from the Mormon side of things here.

I get it.

Feel free to remain anonymous. It has its consequences. I get it. Really.

I'm a little curious about another matter. Is no one asking me to post the poll here, and not posting it themselves, because they simply don't even want readers here to have ready access to what Mormons are evading "giving an answer" regarding what they believe?

Sincerely,

Robert Baty

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

[bluebell]

NOPE!

I don't think history is going to be vindicating you.

But it will vindicate my analysis of such antics as you display in evading engaging in open, honest discussion of these important, public issues.

Sincerely,

Robert Baty

http://groups.yahoo....Maury_and_Baty/

Sorry, that 'vindicate me' quote's a history inside joke that i just could NOT resist.

Seriously though, knock yourself out with the analyzing and all the judging. I promise not to loose any sleep over it. In fact, i've got some great things to do tonight and probably won't be back to this conversation so i'll even help you prove your superiority to me by giving you the last word.

(and seriously, learn the definition of 'antics'.)

[RLBaty]

Sorry, that 'vindicate me' quote's a history inside joke that i just could NOT resist.

Seriously though, knock yourself out with the analyzing and all the judging. I promise not to loose any sleep over it. In fact, i've got some great things to do tonight and probably won't be back to this conversation so i'll even help you prove your superiority to me by giving you the last word.

(and seriously, learn the definition of 'antics'.)

HA! Thanks for giving me another opportunity to reference some of my favorite Bible verses!

Matthew 7:1,2

James 3:1

If you have a problem understanding the application to y'all's antics here, let me know; I'm open to conversation.

For instance, after you "give an answer" to the poll issues as a reflection of your good faith in these important matters, we can then consider quibbling a bit about the definition problem you are having with regard to "antics".

I guess of the Mormon apologist Brian Casaday can quibble about cocoa and bait people with the question about how many children Joseph Smith had, I can discuss the meaning I use when talking about "antics".

And your answer to the poll issues are?????

Or is this the last word you are going to let me have as far as your involvement in these matters???

Sincerely,

Robert Baty

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/

[Calm]

I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. I did so this time as well, but then I went to your yahoo group.

Exactly...

[Calm]

I'm a little curious about another matter. Is no one asking me to post the poll here, and not posting it themselves, because they simply don't even want readers here to have ready access to what Mormons are evading "giving an answer" regarding what they believe?

Not by me.

It is against the board rules to have confrontational posts/debates here in Social Hall. This is supposed to be for social support and fun stuff. This is not the "lion's mouth" but a room full of kittens.

If the mods close down the thread, just think...you can claim that once again you are proven that LDS will evade, etc. etc. You would be wrong...but I don't expect that to stop you.

If you want the poll posted, you might contact the mods and ask for the thread to be moved or something else to the main forum. Good luck with that one.....

[RLBaty]

It is against the board rules to have confrontational posts/debates here in Social Hall.

This is supposed to be for social support and fun stuff.

This is not the "lion's mouth" but a room full of kittens.

If the mods close down the thread, just think...you can

claim that once again you are proven that LDS will evade,

etc. etc.

You would be wrong...but I don't expect that to stop you.

If you want the poll posted, you might contact the mods and

ask for the thread to be moved or something else to the main

forum.

Good luck with that one.....

Who is not having fun?

Who is being confrontational?

Linda Fiatoa expressed some concern recently, warning me not to put words in her mouth!

Ha!

It seems Mormons here are pretty good at trying to anticipate what words will come out of my mouth based on speculative developments.

I pretty much let moderators do what moderators do.

If they pull the plug on this thread or otherwise tamper with the evidence, I won't necessary attribute it to evasion. How I characterize it may depend on what, if any, explanation is given. If they attribute their action to any unseemly comments from me, or the posting of my poll, I will be very critical of their actions since it is the Mormons here who seem less inclined to have fun in taking part in my poll and discussing its relevant, important, public issues.

I have to get in 25 posts, I hear, before I can go anywhere else here.

So, why don't I just post my poll, for the fun of it, and see if that might encourate Mormons to participate, for the record in this important, public exercise regarding the proposition "Ask a Mormon"?

Sincerely,

Robert Baty

[RLBaty]

OK, here it is!

The poll issues, current responses to date, and the official LDS Church website whereof the poll issues were derived:

Poll Issues:

> (A) God revealed the doctrine of

> plural marriage to Joseph Smith?

>

>> Robert Baty (non-Mormon) - No

>>

>> Ray Ausban (Mormon) - Yes

>> Linda Fiatoa (Mormon) - Yes

>> Ryan Heath (Mormon) - Yes

>> George de Metz (Mormon) - Yes

>> Aaron Ulrich (Mormon) - Yes

>> Violets (Anonymous Mormon) - Yes

> (B) God commanded Joseph Smith

> to live it?

>

>> Robert Baty (non-Mormon) - No

>>

>> Ray Ausban (Mormon) - Yes

>> Linda Fiatoa (Mormon) - Yes

>> Ryan Heath (Mormon) - Yes

>> George de Metz (Mormon) - Yes

>> Aaron Ulrich (Mormon) - Yes

>> Violets (Anonymous Mormon) - Yes

> © Joseph Smith taught the

> doctrine to some associates?

>

>> Robert Baty (non-Mormon) - Yes

>>

>> Ray Ausban (Mormon) - Yes

>> Linda Fiatoa (Mormon) - Yes

>> Ryan Heath (Mormon) - Yes

>> George de Metz (Mormon) - Yes

>> Aaron Ulrich (Mormon) - Yes

>> Violets (Anonymous Mormon) - Yes

> (D) Joseph Smith and a number of

> his associates entered into plural

> marriages?

>

>> Robert Baty (non-Mormon) - Yes

>>

>> Ray Ausban (Mormon) - Yes

>> Linda Fiatoa (Mormon) - Yes

>> Ryan Heath (Mormon) - Yes

>> George de Metz (Mormon) - Yes

>> Aaron Ulrich (Mormon) - Yes

>> Violets (Anonymous Mormon) - Yes

> (E) Joseph Smith and his associates

> needed and received personal inspiration

> from God to help them enter in to

> plural marriages?

>

>> Robert Baty (non-Mormon) - No

>>

>> Ray Ausban (Mormon) - Yes

>> Linda Fiatoa (Mormon) - Yes

>> Ryan Heath (Mormon) - Yes

>> George de Metz (Mormon) - Yes

>> Aaron Ulrich (Mormon) - Yes

>> Violets (Anonymous Mormon) - Yes

"Official" Mormon Website:

http://classic.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?index=16&locale=0&sourceId=9887ec6f164b2110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

Now, who wants to have some NON-confrontational fun in discussion one or more of the various aspects of the poll?

Anyone?

Sincerely,

Robert Baty

[RLBaty]

For your enjoyment and further education regarding the history of these important public matters, I have posted a note at my place that explains a little more about how I came to be here.

Also, I note that still none here have requited my love and dared to show up at my place.

Here's the link to my just posted note about how I came to be here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maury_and_Baty/message/27619

Sincerely,

Robert Baty