Spider-Man Has Left the Church

[clarkgoble]

On 8/28/2018 at 9:27 AM, Gray said:

I'm pretty sure it was because his garments kept bunching up under that tight spandex costume.

No way that's spandex otherwise the villains would smell him coming a mile away.

[sunstoned]

11 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I didn’t realize it was scriptural to sleep with other women behind your wife’s back. 

Here is the scripture (D&C 132:60) that talks about plural marriage:

Quote

And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

According to JS's own scripture for polygamy to be "justified" the women had to be virgins and vowed to no other man.  The first virgin must also give her consent. So sleeping with other men's wives behind Emma's back was a flagrant violation of this scripture.  Apparently Smith couldn't keep his own commandment.   Apologists can spin this any way they want.  But IMO this is reprehensible behavior. 

 

 

[carbon dioxide]

29 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I didn’t realize it was scriptural to sleep with other women behind your wife’s back. 

That would a separate issue. 

[carbon dioxide]

6 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Here is the scripture (D&C 132:60) that talks about plural marriage:

According to JS's own scripture for polygamy to be "justified" the women had to be virgins and vowed to no other man.  The first virgin must also give her consent. So sleeping with other men's wives behind Emma's back was a flagrant violation of this scripture.  Apparently Smith couldn't keep his own commandment.   Apologists can spin this any way they want.  But IMO this is reprehensible behavior.

That assumes that Joseph actually was "sleeping" with them. 

[Tacenda]

46 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

That assumes that Joseph actually was "sleeping" with them. 

Surely you've read the Reed Smoot transcript and Brian Hales website. Polygamous wives of Joseph admitted it.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Tacenda

[JulieM]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Not my Dad. My stepmom and her first husband.

And I disagree. If it's ok for a 14 year old girl to marry, her age is then immaterial, regardless of who her husband is. Bringing her age into the equation is sensationalism, pure and simple.

I hope things worked out for them, I really do.  But details matter when you’re making comparisons and imo, they aren’t at all the same (other than there was a 14 year old girl who was the bride).  There are simply too many troubling details with what Joseph was doing vs. your step Mom’s marriage.

We should probably just agree that we disagree, and I understand.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

That would a separate issue. 

But few people would separate them to judge.

Think of a house and trying to sell it.  If it has one or two undesirable characteristic( by railroad tracks and not much curb appeal), it might not impede a sale, but if there were multiple problems (poor heat/cold, previous tenant had lots of cats, etc.) even if a buyer could find each deficiency acceptable on their own, the combo isn't.

If Joseph had one wife and she was fourteen, no big deal probably.  These days if Joseph practiced polygamy with a few adult women, it is possible many would be troubled by it, but find it acceptable.  If Joseph eloped with one woman without family knowing (iirc he pretty much did with Emma), no big deal.  If Joseph hid his one marriage from the public depending on why it was done (to keep his wife protected from the attacks on him), he might be applauded for it.

However, when one throws his actions all together, it raises the discomfort level dramatically.  It is not something that is a factual judgment (Nephites exist or don't exist), it is a character judgment (Joseph is a someone to like or dislike).  Character judgments are based combination of attributes and how they make someone feel.

If someone feels certain actions of Joseph add up to a majorally flawed man, there must be an equally or greater combination of reasons to approve of him as a prophet to balance out the weight of all the negatives and continue to believe, imo.

 

[Calm]

54 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Surely you've read the Reed Smoot transcript and Brian Hales website. Polygamous wives of Joseph admitted it.

I believe he was speaking of the polyandrous wives.

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, sunstoned said:

 
In 1840, the "Average Age at First Marriage" for women is estimated to be between 21 and 22 years of age.  In 1950, the "Average Age at First Marriage" dipped to about 20 years of age.  By 2005, the "Average Age at First Marriage" had risen to about 25 years of age.

Sources:

U.S. Census Bureau, Table MS-2, "Estimated Age at First Marriage, by Sex: 1890 to the Present"

Smith, D.S. - 1993.  "American Family and Demographic Patterns and the Northwest European Model", Continuity and Change 8(December):389-415
  

Still worked up over the bride's age are we? 

By 2005 couples dont bother getting married until they need an extra romantic event to keep the flame alive, having been shacked up for years.

Averages can be remarkably meaningless at times.

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, sunstoned said:

More ad hominems attacks.  Classy.

It's an ad hominem to say that something stated contains lies? Strange, I was under the impression that it was defined differently.

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

[smac97]

8 hours ago, sunstoned said:

More ad hominems attacks.  Classy.

Nope.  

[jkwilliams]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

That would a separate issue. 

Not really. Again, this comes down to someone using a position of great power and authority to gain sexual favors from his followers and concealing these sexual relationships from his spouse. 

[jkwilliams]

4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

It's an ad hominem to say that something stated contains lies? Strange, I was under the impression that it was defined differently.

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

It's been a while since I looked at the CES letter. Are there lies in it?

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It's been a while since I looked at the CES letter. Are there lies in it?

"Lie":

Quote

Noun:

1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture:
3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.
4. the charge or accusation of telling a lie:

Verb (w/out Object)

5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.

Verb (w/ Object)

7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively)

I think definitions #2, #3 and #6 above are very well-represented in the CES Letter.

See also sensationalism, shock value, yellow journalism, screed, decontextualize, and presentism.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Lie":

I think definitions #2, #3 and #6 above are very well-represented in the CES Letter.

Perhaps an example is in order.

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

It's been a while since I looked at the CES letter. Are there lies in it?

Haven't checked to see. Was not addressing potential lies in it. Just asserting that what was labelled as ad hominem isn't ad hominem. Because stating that what someone has said is a lie is not the same as calling them a liar.

[JulieM]

6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Still worked up over the bride's age are we? 

By 2005 couples dont bother getting married until they need an extra romantic event to keep the flame alive, having been shacked up for years.

Averages can be remarkably meaningless at times.

I'm not sure why you can't see that this is just one piece of many about the details of Joseph's polygamy that together make a disturbing picture for many.  If he'd just simply married one wife (his legal wife) that was a teenager, it wouldn't be an issue.  Certainly you can see why some are upset when they learn he married many young girls without the knowledge of Emma (and many of them were her house maids who she loved as daughters).  It wasn't just one teenager he married.  It's also just as disturbing to learn he married women who already had legal husbands (who were older), so it's not just an age issue. That's just one of the many disturbing details. 

Edited August 30, 2018 by JulieM

[JulieM]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

That, I think, typifies the approach to LDS doctrine and history taken by the likes of Runnells.  As Robert previously put it: "Runnells and Zachary both tell the truth sometimes, but they present no fair and balanced statement on the Mormon faith, ... and there are lots of lies -- designed for presentation to the vulnerable and naive."

If you've seen "lots of lies" in the CES letter, can you give three examples of these lies?  I've read it and saw no lies, so I'm very interested in what you believe were lies.

Edited August 30, 2018 by JulieM

[hope_for_things]

Wow, check this out.  Marvel officially removed the CES letter Easter Egg.  Also, the MDDB is now famous as it was referenced in this SLTrib article on the subject.  Wow, exciting times.  

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/08/30/marvel-removes-logo/

Quote

A Reddit post reported to be from Ottley — deleted, but screenshot and posted on mormondialogue.org — reads, “I’m an exmo, just resigned this year. And I draw Amazing Spider-Man for Marvel. I threw in a little Easter egg in the issue that came out last week.” And it’s accompanied by a photo of Spider-man with the CES Letter logo.

 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Perhaps an example is in order.

Yes, that would be helpful. Even if we assume that Runnells is motivated by nothing other than a demonic drive to rip souls away from the Kingdom of God, there are more than enough legitimate issues to focus on without having to resort to flat out lies. So why would a shrewd villain resort to lies when he could make a more effective attack using the truth?

When I browse through the letter, it rings as being honest and sincere. Yes, apologists have attempted to address these issues. One can find the apologists unconvincing and still be a fundamentally honest and sincere person. And if the apologist's answers were really that strong, wouldn't it be better to focus on the answers rather than the character of Runnells?

Edited August 30, 2018 by Analytics

[smac97]

58 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Perhaps an example is in order.

From Jim Bennet's fisking (references are to page numbers in Bennet's document):

• Comments on what "DNA analysis has concluded..." (p. 17);
• Comment that " There is absolutely no archaeological evidence to directly support the Book of Mormon..." (the weasel ford "directly" gives Runnells an out, but still...") (p. 19);
• Comment that "Nephites/Lamanites [] numbered in the millions" (p. 19);
• Claim that there are "more than a dozen Book of Mormon names that are the same as or nearly the same as modern geographical locations" (p. 25).

And so on.

The "lie" is that this "letter" was a sincere, good faith request for assistance from the CES director.  It isn't.  I don't think it ever was.

The "lie" is that this "letter" was the result of actual, rigorous study (rather than merely a massive cut-and-pasted culling from various online sources critical of the Church).

"By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger."

That, I think, typifies the approach to LDS doctrine and history taken by the likes of Runnells.  As Robert previously put it: "Runnells ... [tells] the truth sometimes, but [he] present{s} no fair and balanced statement on the Mormon faith, ... and there are lots of lies -- designed for presentation to the vulnerable and naive."

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

Just now, smac97 said:

From Jim Bennet's fisking (references are to page numbers in Bennet's document):

• Comments on what "DNA analysis has concluded..." (p. 17);
• Comment that " There is absolutely no archaeological evidence to directly support the Book of Mormon..." (the weasel ford "directly" gives Runnells an out, but still...") (p. 19);
• Comment that "Nephites/Lamanites [] numbered in the millions" (p. 19);
• Claim that there are "more than a dozen Book of Mormon names that are the same as or nearly the same as modern geographical locations" (p. 25).

And so on.

The "lie" is that this "letter" was a sincere, good faith request for assistance from the CES director.  It isn't.  I don't think it ever was.

The "lie" is that this "letter" was the result of actual, rigorous study (rather than merely a massive cut-and-pasted culling from various online sources critical of the Church).

"By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger."

That, I think, typifies the approach to LDS doctrine and history taken by the likes of Runnells.  As Robert previously put it: "Runnells ... [tells] the truth sometimes, but [he] present{s} no fair and balanced statement on the Mormon faith, ... and there are lots of lies -- designed for presentation to the vulnerable and naive."

Jim is an old friend of mine, and I've shared with him what I think of his response to Runnells. Yes, one can disagree with the bullets above, but that's not the same as saying they are lies. For example, I agree that there is no archaeological evidence to support the Book of Mormon. A couple of my professors at BYU said exactly the same thing. Are we lying? 

[JulieM]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From Jim Bennet's fisking (references are to page numbers in Bennet's document):

• Comments on what "DNA analysis has concluded..." (p. 17);
• Comment that " There is absolutely no archaeological evidence to directly support the Book of Mormon..." (the weasel ford "directly" gives Runnells an out, but still...") (p. 19);
• Comment that "Nephites/Lamanites [] numbered in the millions" (p. 19);
• Claim that there are "more than a dozen Book of Mormon names that are the same as or nearly the same as modern geographical locations" (p. 25).

And so on.

The "lie" is that this "letter" was a sincere, good faith request for assistance from the CES director.  It isn't.  I don't think it ever was.

The "lie" is that this "letter" was the result of actual, rigorous study (rather than merely a massive cut-and-pasted culling from various online sources critical of the Church).

"By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger."

That, I think, typifies the approach to LDS doctrine and history taken by the likes of Runnells.  As Robert previously put it: "Runnells ... [tells] the truth sometimes, but [he] present{s} no fair and balanced statement on the Mormon faith, ... and there are lots of lies -- designed for presentation to the vulnerable and naive."

Thanks,

-Smac

I see no “lies” in that list.  One can maybe disagree, but that doesn’t mean they are lies.  Just my opinion.

[Analytics]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From Jim Bennet's fisking (references are to page numbers in Bennet's document):

• Comments on what "DNA analysis has concluded..." (p. 17);
• Comment that " There is absolutely no archaeological evidence to directly support the Book of Mormon..." (the weasel ford "directly" gives Runnells an out, but still...") (p. 19);
• Comment that "Nephites/Lamanites [] numbered in the millions" (p. 19);
• Claim that there are "more than a dozen Book of Mormon names that are the same as or nearly the same as modern geographical locations" (p. 25).

And so on.

Those are pretty weak. As an example of a supposed "lie", the CES Letter suggests that on the proposed geography, the BOM Kishkumen fits onto the new world town of Kishkiminetas. However this is a "lie", according to Smac, because Kishkiminetas wasn't incorporated until 1831. However, Kishkiminetas was settled in 1773. It was named Kishkiminetas after the Kishkiminetas River, which has always been called that. So CFR that the town of Kishkiminetas wasn't called Kishkiminetas until it was incorporated in 1831, and that Runnells knew that it wasn't called that but deliberately lied about it anyway.

If we aren't willing to grant sincerity to people who come to different conclusions and try to explain their beliefs, then Jim Bennet is the real liar. His letter isn't a good-faith effort to present a fair and balanced portrayal of the issues as the result of a rigorous study. It's a lie designed to salvage faith for the desperate by disparaging the character of Runnells.

 

Edited August 30, 2018 by Analytics

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Those are pretty weak. As an example of a supposed "lie", the CES Letter suggests that on the proposed geography, the BOM Kishkumen fits onto the new world town of Kishkiminetas. However this is a "lie", according to Smac, because Kishkiminetas wasn't incorporated until 1831. However, Kishkiminetas was settled in 1773. It was named Kishkiminetas after the Kishkiminetas River, which has always been called that. So CFR that the town of Kishkiminetas wasn't called Kishkiminetas until it was incorporated in 1831, and that Runnells knew that it wasn't called that but deliberately lied about it anyway.

If we aren't willing to grant sincerity to people who come to different conclusions and try to explain their beliefs, then Jim Bennet is the real liar. His letter isn't a good-faith effort to present a fair and balanced portrayal of the issues as the result of a rigorous study. It's a lie designed to salvage faith for the desperate by disparaging the character of Runnells.

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a lie, but I have talked to Jim extensively about his response, which I find not particularly helpful. I don't think that means Jim is a liar or a bad person.