On Despising Apostate Sanctimony

[Tacenda]

This wins the prize for the most sexist post on the thread. What makes it quite interesting is that it comes from an alleged advocate for gender equality.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Why is this sexist?  I'm just stating it from a personal vantage point and many others.  Not all I guess. 

Edited November 9, 2014 by Tacenda

[Senator]

Toxic apostate and toxic apologist, meet corrupt politician.

Ha!

 

Touche'

 

Do we have the makings of an evil triad?

[Calm]

Why is this sexist? I'm just stating it from a personal vantage point and many others. Not all I guess.

You were speaking for all women for one thing....whether or not that was your intent, you wrote it that way.

And given you've must have read posts here from women who have stated they've believe it was a divine command, it should be more than a guess.

(saying if two men were women, they would think a certain way means that all women think that way...at best the "I bet" means a very large majority think that way)

Edited November 9, 2014 by calmoriah

[Pahoran]

The irony (incongruence) is that a commenter on Sister Colvin's blog is called a sycophant for being a fan of her blog.

No, he's called a sycophant for lavishing her with obsequious praise.

Yet, a faithful member's "sycophancy" toward the Brethren is an order of magnitude greater. I doubt very seriously that this fan gathers with others each Sunday to sing about being thankful for a Colvin. Nor, to my knowledge, does Sister Colvin teach that it is a sin to speak against the blog's anointed.

She may not express it in such terms, but she does indeed regard it as a sin. Worthy of being cast into outer darkness and being made an un-person.

When it comes to sycophancy, as Mormons, we are both the pot and the kettle calling the silverware black.

Adding to the incongruence is the fact that this entire thread was started to criticize Sister Colvin for not being sycophantic ENOUGH for Pahoran's tastes. Because she dares to openly express her disagreement (at times) with "those who shall only be praised," she's a bad, bad member.

You really missed the point of this thread, didn't you?

I suggest you read the OP again.

Regards,

Pahoran

[halconero]

 

Tacenda:  There a lot of rep points given you for non answers to my points.  Especially when you have blinders on.  Did I say anything about the brother being willing, I said no where does it say that the brother was married who took on the widowed wife.     

 

Who cares about rep points??

I actually won't interpret your comment then. You tell me by what you meant when you said that if those male posters were female that you bet they would be against polygamy.

 

I never mentioned the brother being willing either. There is no specific brother. It's a general commandment to all siblings, married or not. If the brother was single, the commandment of levirate marriage was a monogamous commandment. If the brother was married, the commandment of levirate marriage was a polygamous one. Again, I can provide sources if you wish. EDIT: I just realized that I put whether or not the brother was "willing" in my original post. It should have said married, not willing.

 

I also don't see how my answers regarding Joseph's polygamy were non-answers. You asked why Joseph would think that polygamy needed to be lived. I answer that according to him it was to fulfill a commandment from God.

 

You mentioned that you don't believe God would command the suffering and pain of his children. I said that this is a non-uncommon occurrence in the Bible. From Abraham and Isaac, Moses, and even Jesus Christ there has been tremendous suffering and pain commanded by God. All for a higher purpose in each instance.

Edited November 10, 2014 by halconero

[volgadon]

If we want to go into this again, I'm more than willing. It doesn't matter whether or not the brother is willing, either way it had to be followed. I can share some historical, and rabbinic commentary on this if you wish.

 

 

Yep.

[Pahoran]

Toxic apostate and toxic apologist, meet corrupt politician.

Isn't "corrupt politician" a redundancy?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bobbieaware]

Isn't "corrupt politician" a redundancy?Regards,Pahoran

True. But I would have forfeited my opportunity to be "witty" if I had not temporarily put that fact aside.

[Bobbieaware]

Ha!

 

Touche'

 

Do we have the makings of an evil triad?

Let's call our evil trio the "Cerberusian Triumvirate of Darkness."

[mormonnewb]

Apart from mormonnwbe' projecting his 21st century, democrat licentious tendencies onto Joseph Smith, is there any empirical evidence to support the claim above?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

YES. Most of the weight of the evidence points to this view. That is WHY there are very few (if any) non-Mormons who believe that JS' polygamy was God-ordained. And it's the very same reason that YOU don't believe the claims of Jeffs, Jones, Koresh, the Munster Anabaptists, et al. You believe JS because you have a testimony of his practically perfect prophetic mantel (try saying that three times quickly). But your testimony does not qualify as "empirical evidence."

On the empirical side, we have:

*. a few thousand years of powerful religious leaders claiming that God wanted them to have multiple women, almost none of which claims we currently accept

*. JS' outright denial of the practice -- prophets don't normally hide God's commandments from His people because the prophet's job is to do just the opposite -- to reveal the commands of Gods

*. The claim is that polygamy was necessary to raise godly seed, yet JS' polygamy raised no such seed. So why was he doing it?

And I really could go on, but my point is not to pile on Brother Joseph. I'm more grateful for the many things he got right than the few he got wrong. But I couldn't let you get away with inventing a 21st century "godless" liberal label on JS' critics. The vast majority of people in JS' own time thought that he was wrong about polygamy. Some saints, including some of his closest friends and confidants, and almost all non-members. They weren't looking at the situation through Mormonnewb-colored lenses. They saw it as most "objective" viewers would.

 

You were asked to not bring criminals into the discussion so it is time to close the thread.

[Pahoran]

In support of Gina Colvin's rant that it is "little other than a form of spiritual abuse to maintain a discourse of high transcendent religious motivation around the character of Joseph Smith when he was, at least in this respect, a womanizing, seducing, Lothario who coopted God in order validate his particular feminine tastes," Mormonnewb offered the following:

 

YES. Most of the weight of the evidence points to this view. That is WHY there are very few (if any) non-Mormons who believe that JS' polygamy was God-ordained.

This is called "shifting the goal posts." It's a time-honoured debate technique, but apart from time, everything else shows it to be dishonourable.

Perhaps you live in some binary world where everything is either "God-ordained" or the actions of "a womanizing, seducing, Lothario."

Intelligent people, however, recognise that it is entirely possible to admit that someone may be doing something based upon actual religious conviction, without feeling that they have thereby validated that conviction as being objectively true.

However, I have also observed that those most likely to be able to make that admission are those who have themselves had the experience of being motivated by actual religious conviction.

An experience Joseph's critics seem to have had rather rarely. If ever.

 

And it's the very same reason that YOU don't believe the claims of Jeffs, Jones, Koresh, the Munster Anabaptists, et al.

Really? How do you know?

 

You believe JS because you have a testimony of his practically perfect prophetic mantel (try saying that three times quickly). But your testimony does not qualify as "empirical evidence."

Neither does your mind-reading. Which is useless at best.

 

On the empirical side, we have:

*. a few thousand years of powerful religious leaders claiming that God wanted them to have multiple women, almost none of which claims we currently accept

That's not "empirical evidence" at all. It's merely an appeal to prejudice. Do you even know what empirical means?

 

*. JS' outright denial of the practice -- prophets don't normally hide God's commandments from His people because the prophet's job is to do just the opposite -- to reveal the commands of Gods

*. The claim is that polygamy was necessary to raise godly seed, yet JS' polygamy raised no such seed. So why was he doing it?

I'd love to think you were actually asking a question there, Newb. But, as we both know, the question mark is merely a rhetorical flourish.

The purpose of which is to inviting the reader to fill a rather large gap in his knowledge from his own little imagination.

I.e. to project his own desires into Joseph's actions.

Which is the sole source of the libido "theory" of Mormon Polygamy.

The sole source.

Make. No. Mistake.

 

And I really could go on,

As you do.

 

but my point is not to pile on Brother Joseph. I'm more grateful for the many things he got right than the few he got wrong. But I couldn't let you get away with inventing a 21st century "godless" liberal label on JS' critics. The vast majority of people in JS' own time thought that he was wrong about polygamy. Some saints, including some of his closest friends and confidants, and almost all non-members. They weren't looking at the situation through Mormonnewb-colored lenses. They saw it as most "objective" viewers would.

"Objective." That's a rather unusual way to spell "Uninformed."

Regards,

Pahoran

[tonie]

This thread certainly covers sanctimony. Its like reading posts on patheos from people who regard it an honor to be banned from Colvins blog.

Edited November 10, 2014 by tonie