Polygamy.....I Now Pronounce You Man and Wives

  • Thread starter Thread starter TexanKnight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
I already did a search and couldnā€™t find your explanation anywhere on the forum.

You also need to be able to demonstrate that it was Joseph Smithā€™s writings that inspired this crime.

I donā€™t think you can.
Click to expand...
Then you arenā€™t very good at searching.

I have read his account on more than one occasion.

try again.
 
twopekinguys said:
Then you arenā€™t very good at searching.

I have read his account on more than one occasion.

try again.
Click to expand...
sigh!

Just did another search. Nothing about Joseph Smithā€™s writings inspiring an attempted kidnapping. šŸ˜¦

Could you at least point me to the writing that Joseph Smith did that served as the apparent impetus?

You have read this on ā€œmore than one occasionā€?
 
twopekinguys said:
Editing a persons post to give the impression they have said something they havenā€™t is very unethical, and deceptive to say the least.

If you are going to quote them, quote them in context.
Click to expand...
It is not against the rules to post part of a memberā€™s response, and respond to it.

It is, however, against the rules to take a post and alter it in some way.
 
TexanKnight said:
You want to force me to show what u consider respect to a guy whose teachings inspired Mormons to kidnap my children. ** I choose to use a given and common name**.
Click to expand...
I find it odd that you have contrasted ā€œrespectā€ with ā€œchoosing to use a given and common name.ā€

Thatā€™s proving my point exactly.

By using the ā€œgiven and common nameā€ you are indeed making it a sign of disrespect for the man, Joseph Smith.

That is not charitable.

If someone uses ā€œJoe Smithā€ as simply a means of using a common form of Joseph, I would have no problem with that, and, I suspect, neither would any Mormons.

But it is indeed, as you so aptly limn, your means of showing disrespect to the man.
 
PRmerger said:
It is not against the rules to post part of a memberā€™s response, and respond to it.

It is, however, against the rules to take a post and alter it in some way.
Click to expand...
Did I say it was against the rules?

I said it is unethical and deceptive.

Please try to keep up.
 
PRmerger said:
I find it odd that you have contrasted ā€œrespectā€ with ā€œchoosing to use a given and common name.ā€

Thatā€™s proving my point exactly.

By using the ā€œgiven and common nameā€ you are indeed making it a sign of disrespect for the man, Joseph Smith.

That is not charitable.

If someone uses ā€œJoe Smithā€ as simply a means of using a common form of Joseph, I would have no problem with that, and, I suspect, neither would any Mormons.

But it is indeed, as you so aptly limn, your means of showing disrespect to the man.
Click to expand...
Get over it. You made your point. You can stop being a bully. I will not change. I have said it is not meant as disrespect, but likewise, I will not go out of my way to show respect. Now, you have made it clear that what happened to my kids is less important than a dead mans name. You have been infinitely more disrespectful to me than I have ever intended to be to Joe. That tells me all I need to know about your character.

I ask you again to return to the OP.
 
TexanKnight said:
Get over it. You made your point. You can stop being a bully. I will not change. I have said it is not meant as disrespect, but likewise, I will not go out of my way to show respect. Now, you have made it clear that what happened to my kids is less important than a dead mans name. You have been infinitely more disrespectful to me than I have ever intended to be to Joe. That tells me all I need to know about your character.

I ask you again to return to the OP.
Click to expand...
I donā€™t even know what happened to your kids! You keep making veiled references to something that happened to them as a result of Joseph Smithā€™s writings, and I keep trying to find out what exactly this isā€¦

So itā€™s curious for you to make the accusation that what happened to them is less important than Joseph Smithā€™s name. I couldnā€™t make any judgement about this whatsoever based on the infinitesimally small information that I have.
 
PRmerger said:
I donā€™t even know what happened to your kids! You keep making veiled references to something that happened to them as a result of Joseph Smithā€™s writings, and I keep trying to find out what exactly this isā€¦

So itā€™s curious for you to make the accusation that what happened to them is less important than Joseph Smithā€™s name. I couldnā€™t make any judgement about this whatsoever based on the infinitesimally small information that I have.
Click to expand...
Then respect the fact I have mentioned it. Have never hidden from it. And stop derailing this thread.

Thank you
 
PRmerger said:
Because a member of his church cares about how his name is used, itā€™s charitable to refrain from using it in a dismissive way.

I wouldnā€™t take kindly to an atheist coming here and calling Mother Teresa ā€œMTā€, as in ā€œDear old MT didnā€™t even let her hospitals use pain medication!ā€. I would ask for a retraction. Even if she is dead.

(NB: No one is equating Mother Teresa with Joseph Smith, except analogically so please do not go to, ā€œHow dare you equate Mother Teresa with a heretic!ā€)
Click to expand...
Just a note, Iā€™ve referred to Joseph Smith as JS and havenā€™t had and LDS take exception to it. It seems to be accepted as a short hand in an informal setting like these sites.
 
zaffiroborant said:
Just a note, Iā€™ve referred to Joseph Smith as JS and havenā€™t had and LDS take exception to it. It seems to be accepted as a short hand in an informal setting like these sites.
Click to expand...
I agree. I donā€™t think a believing Latter-day Saint would have a problem with JS.
kimg901 said:
I understand what you are saying, we should respect their wishes. But saying Joe instead of Joseph isnt or shouldnt be a big deal. Im not sure if you are aware of their beliefs PR but they put more stock into smith than Jesus or God. And when they can show us all proof of their allegations that their church is the true church and smith was indeed a true prophet of our Lord, then ill say joseph smith rather than joe smith. And whats funny is that I have been using joe smith along with TK and others here for sometime now but no complaints. The reason they (or him) is complaing is beacause he is trying to get off topic because they cannot back their claims or beliefs.
Click to expand...
Iā€™m sorry but that isnā€™t logical at all.

ā€œJoeā€ and ā€œJoeyā€ and other such names are certainly uncharitable and demeaning, whether or not he was a fraud/liar/or whatever, since he still is considered to have been the founder of the Mormon faith and is revered by them as a prophet (regardless of whether or not he is) and religious leader. I think itā€™s common courtesy to refer to him as Joseph Smith, Joseph, or Smith (or JS) when discoursing with believing members of that faith, in accordance with the rules of this forum. I can see why someone would want to stop dialoguing with another if an important religious figure in their faith is demeaned as such. The same goes for religious figures in other faiths, whether itā€™s Catholicism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Witchcraft, or whatever. Especially if youā€™re trying to ā€œplant a seedā€, I think this is simple thing to do. I donā€™t think thatā€™s too much to ask, and I donā€™t see why 3+ pages were spent discussing that. šŸ¤·
 
I got this,

Polygamy = bad
Monogamy = good

1 man, 1 women = good
1 man, more than 1 women= bad

Everyone got it? Good.šŸ‘
 
zaffiroborant said:
Just a note, Iā€™ve referred to Joseph Smith as JS and havenā€™t had and LDS take exception to it. It seems to be accepted as a short hand in an informal setting like these sites.
Click to expand...
I too have referred to Mormon prophets bt their initials, no one has complained yet, if they did I would stop. I feel a bit responsible for this derailment, sorry to everyone
 
lynnettejane said:
I too have referred to Mormon prophets bt their initials, no one has complained yet, if they did I would stop. I feel a bit responsible for this derailment, sorry to everyone
Click to expand...
No need. I have been calling him Joe for a long time and no Mormon said a word until this threadā€¦and it served its purpose. He made his comment and the thread was horribly derailed.

Again, I mean no disrespect, nor will I go out of my way to show respect.
 
zaffiroborant said:
Just a note, Iā€™ve referred to Joseph Smith as JS and havenā€™t had and LDS take exception to it. It seems to be accepted as a short hand in an informal setting like these sites.
Click to expand...
Right. I have referred to Pope John Paul and Pope JPII, and to the Holy Spirit as HS!

Shorthand is not the problem.

Point: If someone who is a guest here has very politely asked that we not refer to Joseph Smith as ā€œJoeā€, it seems the charitable thing to do. Especially when it is clearly being done as a form of disrespect, despite protestations to the contrary. ā€œYou want me to show respect for him. But Iā€™m going to use his common given name!ā€

As I said, I never use the term ā€œProtestantā€ as a pejorative. It is simply an understood label for any non-Catholic Christian. But if someone here asks me not to use it, well, I donā€™t use it with him.

Itā€™s the nice thing to do.

And if there were a Catholic here on the forum who continued to use it with this Protestant, esp. if this Catholic were tussling with the Protestant, you can better believe Iā€™d stand up for the polite Protestant, no matter how contrary his theology was.
 
lynnettejane said:
I too have referred to Mormon prophets bt their initials, no one has complained yet, if they did I would stop.
Click to expand...
Yep. Thatā€™s whatā€™s called good dialogue.

Doesnā€™t mean you agree with their theology. It just means that you can move forward and plant a seed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top