Finally, Catholic Answers comes clean with the mormon threat ownership.

[why_me]

Which supports my point: Mormonism must stand or fall on the truth or falsity of its doctrine, not on the conduct of its members.

This has been my point. And so far, mormonism hasn’t fallen by the wayside. The lds church is a ‘revolutionary’ church because of what it has done for christianity. Its doctrine is quite exceptional and yet, it has not fallen on barren ground.

No dirty laundry or no "book of mormon is a ‘fraud’"speech will discredit the lds church because all have sinned and the book has not been proven a fraud.

 

[BartBurk]

This has been my point. And so far, mormonism hasn’t fallen by the wayside. The lds church is a ‘revolutionary’ church because of what it has done for christianity. Its doctrine is quite exceptional and yet, it has not fallen on barren ground.

No dirty laundry or no "book of mormon is a ‘fraud’"speech will discredit the lds church because all have sinned and the book has not been proven a fraud.

It’s been proven to be a fraud to me. What would it take for you to believe it was a fraud? Are you even willing to believe it might be a fraud?

 

[majick275]

This has been my point. And so far, mormonism hasn’t fallen by the wayside. The lds church is a ‘revolutionary’ church because of what it has done for christianity. Its doctrine is quite exceptional and yet, it has not fallen on barren ground.

No dirty laundry or no "book of mormon is a ‘fraud’"speech will discredit the lds church because all have sinned and the book has not been proven a fraud.

you are missing the metaphor. LDS doctrine “falls” because it’s false. that has nothing to do with temporal success of the LDs church. Islam has millions of fanatical adherents so it certainly hasn’t “fallen by the wayside”. however it is NOT Gods church either. The LDS church could be considered “revolutionary” in that it “revolted” from Christianity. What do you think it has done FOR Christianity? it’s doctrine is is wrong and what do you mena by it has not fallen on barren ground? the BoM has been proven a fraud by many. you choose not to accept that. Great…millions of muslims will tell you the Koran has never been proven a fraud and obviously their doctrine hasn’t fallen on barren ground since you can see their numbers and might. so what exactly are you hoping to prove? (BTW…would you please stop with all the “commercials” asking folks here to jump over to your LDS boards where your missionary buddies can work on them without interference?)

 

[MelanieAnne]

It’s been proven to be a fraud to me. What would it take for you to believe it was a fraud? Are you even willing to believe it might be a fraud?

Proving a non-existent text to be a fraud requires deductive reasoning. That’s not necessarily compatible with faith.

 

[Gamera]

Gamera, I appreciate your opinion and I am impressed with your conviction - although denying that you are making an argument is kind of funny. But I am sorry, I really don’t think you have much of a case here. Joseph Smith’s life is certainly fair game for discussion and criticism. If you want to start a thread about St. Peter being a less than upstanding person and how he took the opportunity to insert his various crimes and lies into Catholic doctrine, have at it - I’d be interested in what you have to say about it.

I am Catholic. Perhaps you missed that. So no, I do not think that St Peter “took the opportunity to insert various crimes and lies into Catholic doctrine.”

I am not attempting to make a “case.” I am not the one asserting a proposition. And no, I am not the one voicing an “argument.” Pointing out the error in someone else’s reasoning is not an argument, it is simply a response to the other person’s argument. If I’m the defense attorney cross-examining a prosecution witness, but call no witnesses of my own, I haven’t put on a “case,” I’ve simply poked holes in my opponent’s case. I’ve got no burden here, nor have I asserted any proposition. The burden is on those asserting that Joseph Smith’s alleged bad acts disprove Mormonism. I have merely shown by example that the argument is incorrect.

 

[Gamera]

Point being that both Islam and mormonism were invented by their founders, they did not come of God. Therefore the character of their inventors is germane. Mohammed was a caravan robber, killer and child molester. Joseph Smith was a con artist, stone-peeper, megalomaniac and serial adulterer. The founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, is sinless. There is no question as to His character, therefore there is no question (among Christians) as to the validity of the faith that He founded. Is that so difficult to understand?

No, your claim isn’t “difficult to understand,” it’s just empty jingoism. You do understand that Mormons think Mormonism was founded by God, and Moslems think Islam was founded by God. Right? Among Mormons, there is no question as to God’s character and therefore no question as to the validity of the religion He founded, namely Mormonism (in their view). Among Moslems, there is no question as to God’s character and therefore no question as to the validity of the faith he founded, namely Islam (in their view). Throwing stones at Joseph Smith and Mohammed does absolutely nothing to disprove the content of their doctrine, any more than citing bad acts of Catholic luminaries does anything to disprove the Catholic faith. Is THAT so difficult to understand?

 

[ibkc]

I am Catholic. Perhaps you missed that. So no, I do not think that St Peter “took the opportunity to insert various crimes and lies into Catholic doctrine.”

You held St. Peter up as an example of why our reasoning was bad, but your argument was a strawman because you ignored the original parameters of our arguments. I took the liberty of applying our actual reasoning, not the reasoning you invente to your argument. I hope you don’t mind.

I am not attempting to make a “case.” I am not the one asserting a proposition. And no, I am not the one voicing an “argument.” Pointing out the error in someone else’s reasoning is not an argument, it is simply a response to the other person’s argument.

Your response to the argument was also an argument: that the personal life of JS is irrelevant to the study of the LDS church and to whether or not the LDS church’s doctrines are true. Going by Dictionary.com’s Definition #4, which I have helpfully quoted in my signature, that is your argument, is it not?

In any case, you have failed to convince me. Joseph Smith founded his religion in part in an attempt to legitimize his own kinks, as I believe the evidence overwhelmingly shows, and this makes discussion of JS’s life essential to understanding the LDS church. I will continue to discuss JS and his life on the Mormon threads.

 

[Gamera]

You held St. Peter up as an example of why our reasoning was bad, but your argument was a strawman because you ignored the original parameters of our arguments. I took the liberty of applying our actual reasoning, not the reasoning you invente to your argument. I hope you don’t mind.

Your response to the argument was also an argument: that the personal life of JS is irrelevant to the study of the LDS church and to whether or not the LDS church’s doctrines are true. Going by Dictionary.com’s Definition #4, which I have helpfully quoted in my signature, that is your argument, is it not?

In any case, you have failed to convince me. Joseph Smith founded his religion in part in an attempt to legitimize his own kinks, as I believe the evidence overwhelmingly shows, and this makes discussion of JS’s life essential to understanding the LDS church. I will continue to discuss JS and his life on the Mormon threads.

I guess my 18 years as a trial attorney haven’t taught me what an "argument’ is, but a stranger on the internet has now enlightened me. Oh, wait … let’s take a closer look at your own definition:

ar·gu·ment
4. a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point: This is a strong argument in favor of her theory.

I am not the one making a statement, offering a reason, or asserting a fact. So hey, what do you know, your own definition shows that I am not the one making an argument after all.

Thanks for telling me in advance what you will continue to discuss. I’ve lived too long to think that I can stop bigotry : it’s like trying to sweep back the ocean with a broom. To return the favor, I will tell you in advance that I won’t be reading it. Like I said, I don’t think I can stop bigotry, but I certainly won’t waste my time reading it.

 

[Gamera]

much of the LDS “dirty laundry” IS (or at least was) doctrine. what joseph smith practiced that most consider objectionable is claimed by him to have been commanded by god. he then revealed that others were “commanded” to engage in these practices. all the while this is going on he is publishing “scripture” that denies it’s being practiced. I believe that is an indictment of the mormon church as opposed to individual members.

This makes more sense. It’s certainly proper to consider what Joseph Smith claimed God revealed and compare that to actual Christian revelation, namely the Bible and Sacred Tradition — that’s what Our Lord wants us to do when someone claims to be speaking for Him (and of course, the idea of any further general revelation after the Apostolic age is itself contrary to Catholic belief). That falls squarely in the category of Mormonism standing or falling on the content of its doctrine.

 

[ibkc]

I am not the one making a statement, offering a reason, or asserting a fact. So hey, what do you know, your own definition shows that I am not the one making an argument after all.

You came into a thread where people were discussing Joseph Smith’s life and told us that we shouldn’t be discussing Joseph Smith’s life. That, sir, is an argument. It also an assertion.

I guess my 18 years as a trial attorney haven’t taught me what an "argument’ is, but a stranger on the internet has now enlightened me.

An appeal to authority! Nice try.

I’ve lived too long to think that I can stop bigotry : it’s like trying to sweep back the ocean with a broom. To return the favor, I will tell you in advance that I won’t be reading it. Like I said, I don’t think I can stop bigotry, but I certainly won’t waste my time reading it.

Ah, now you’re indirectly calling me a bigot - the term for that tactic is “Ad hominen”! You’re really on a roll today and I congratulate you for that.



You still haven’t convinced me, by the way. Joseph Smith’s life is still as relevant to the study of the LDS church as it ever was.

 

[Gamera]

You came into a thread where people were discussing Joseph Smith’s life and told us that we shouldn’t be discussing Joseph Smith’s life. That, sir, is an argument. It also an assertion.

An appeal to authority! Nice try.

Ah, now you’re indirectly calling me a bigot - the term for that tactic is “Ad hominen”! You’re really on a roll today and I congratulate you for that.



You still haven’t convinced me, by the way. Joseph Smith’s life is still as relevant to the study of the LDS church as it ever was.

I am not out to convince YOU. You are the one asserting a proposition. You are the one bearing the burden to convince others.

I did NOT tell you or anyone else what they should or shouldn’t discuss. Go back and read my posts. Never once did I tell anybody what they should or shouldn’t say. Perhaps you read that into my posts because your conscience is bothering you? What I wrote was that I felt concern because Joseph Smith’s alleged dirty laundry is not a proper way to debunk Mormonism.

I have not “appealed to authority,” I have only given you a minute fraction of your own sarcasm, only without the smarmy, self-satisfied tone that you use.

I am not “indirectly” calling you a bigot. Your bigotry is obvious and blatant.

Oh, and this is not a thread for discussing Joseph Smith’s life. Read the thread title. Nice try, though. My post was a reply to the OP, not to what came after.

 

[ibkc]

I did NOT tell you or anyone else what they should or shouldn’t discuss.

…

Oh, and this is not a thread for discussing Joseph Smith’s life. Read the thread title. Nice try, though.

 

[kalt]

I am not out to convince YOU. You are the one asserting a proposition. You are the one bearing the burden to convince others.

I did NOT tell you or anyone else what they should or shouldn’t discuss. Go back and read my posts. Never once did I tell anybody what they should or shouldn’t say. Perhaps you read that into my posts because your conscience is bothering you?

I have not “appealed to authority,” I have only given you a minute fraction of your own sarcasm, only without the smarmy, self-satisfied tone that you use.

I am not “indirectly” calling you a bigot. Your bigotry is obvious and blatant.

Oh, and this is not a thread for discussing Joseph Smith’s life. Read the thread title. Nice try, though.

While a debate about which of the 2 of you is the better person might be interesting to you guys, it’s not to the rest of us.

Can we get back on topic, which isn’t either one of you.

 

[Gamera]

Oh, awesome idea! Take two sentences from two different paragraphs on two different topics, edit out everything else, and make it look like they were about the same topic! Why, what a brilliant idea — with that kind of dishonest trickery, we could make it look like anybody said anything!!! Brilliant!

Obviously (from the entirety of my post), I was saying that this thread is not EXCLUSIVELY about Joseph Smith’s personal life. The topic is supposed to be the allegedly anti-Mormon e-mail, and that’s what I addressed. Equally obviously, as anyone who goes backand reads the thread will see, I never told anybody to stop discussing any particular subject. I voiced a concern that Joseph Smith’s dirty laundry was not a proper method of discrediting Mormonism. That doesn’t make me pro-Mormon, it doesn’t make me pro-censorship, and it doesn’t put any burden on me to prove anything.

 

[Gamera]

While a debate about which of the 2 of you is the better person might be interesting to you guys, it’s not to the rest of us.

Can we get back on topic, which isn’t either one of you.

Nothing would please me more.

 

[ibkc]

While a debate about which of the 2 of you is the better person might be interesting to you guys, it’s not to the rest of us.

Can we get back on topic, which isn’t either one of you.

You’re right, kalt. I apologize to the forum for allowing myself to get sidetracked.

 

[hosemonkey]

No, your claim isn’t “difficult to understand,” it’s just empty jingoism. You do understand that Mormons think Mormonism was founded by God, and Moslems think Islam was founded by God. Right? Among Mormons, there is no question as to God’s character and therefore no question as to the validity of the religion He founded, namely Mormonism (in their view). Among Moslems, there is no question as to God’s character and therefore no question as to the validity of the faith he founded, namely Islam (in their view). Throwing stones at Joseph Smith and Mohammed does absolutely nothing to disprove the content of their doctrine, any more than citing bad acts of Catholic luminaries does anything to disprove the Catholic faith. Is THAT so difficult to understand?

You are wrong. Your eighteen years as a trial lawyer has handicapped your common sense.

 

[Gamera]

You are wrong. Your eighteen years as a trial lawyer has handicapped your common sense.

Ba- dum Bum!

Wow, a lawyer joke. How original.

 

[hosemonkey]

Ba- dum Bum!

Wow, a lawyer joke. How original.

It is no joke, but then again, lawyers are quite used to defending the indefensible.

 

[Gamera]

It is no joke, but then again, lawyers are quite used to defending the indefensible.

So, just like you support discrediting Mormonism by attacking the character of Mormons, you now defend anti-Mormonism by attacking those who question it. At least you’re consistent.