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

[twopekinguys]

I think it’s the broad brush approach that isn’t fair. I don’t believe that Mormon posters come here to lie to us. Yes, obviously I could not disagree with their theology more. The fact that some Mormons continued practicing polygamy after it was officially banned says something about those folks, but not all Mormons. I just think the dialogue runs a lot smoother if we can treat each other with some respect. It is the constant personal jabs, the “what’s the matter, are you afraid of me…” type language that is inappropriate and which does not lend itself to the purpose of this forum. Everyone just needs to lighten up a little and not use these forums as a mechanism to work out their own anger.

I agree, and I don’t know that anyone here has called a mormon poster a liar, as neuro would like us to believe.

Unfortunately, jabs are part of the whole online thing. People need to be a little thick skinned to participate, and keep participating. These forums are alot more tame than what they were before Eric became Sheriff (Good Job Eric )

What irritates people the most is when a point is made, and the other poster (usually mormon) either becomes condescending (remember Z/Math), or ignores the facts or the post all together.

Before I keep going, I would still like neuro to answer my question about mormon leadership admitting to the senate that they continued polygamy after it was banned. Was it intentional deception? Lying? Don’t ask don’t tell?

Was it honest and above board? Was it ethical? Tell me what word(s) should be used to describe that behavior.

 

[TexanKnight]

I think it’s the broad brush approach that isn’t fair. I don’t believe that Mormon posters come here to lie to us. Yes, obviously I could not disagree with their theology more. The fact that some Mormons continued practicing polygamy after it was officially banned says something about those folks, but not all Mormons. I just think the dialogue runs a lot smoother if we can treat each other with some respect. It is the constant personal jabs, the “what’s the matter, are you afraid of me…” type language that is inappropriate and which does not lend itself to the purpose of this forum. Everyone just needs to lighten up a little and not use these forums as a mechanism to work out their own anger.

Not sure what post you read, but it was never said about LDS posters. His comment was about lying to the Senate.

 

[lynnettejane]

What, you mean about stuff you hear about mormons? You could find a knowledgeable mormon yout trust and ask them. Or find the occasional author that both ‘sides’ respect (for example, they tell me the book Rough Stone Rolling is pretty universally hailed by both LDS and critics).

Having been branded a liar here on these forums a few times, I know how wearisome it can get.

But there’s a difference between hearing someone’s opinion about some published work, and reading a professional review. I don’t care whether people like or hate this or that church critic, I am more interested to see how their criticisms are addressed. If it’s an invalid criticism, I don’t really care if the person is lying, deluded, uncharitable, or just wrong, I am more interested to see the criticism addressed.

And after following and participating in LDS apologetics since the mid '90’s, I’ve pretty much heard it all. There is still the occasional new thing, but just about everything I’ve heard on this board, I’ve heard, researched, and resolved to my own satisfaction.

I don’t get Grant Palmer. The only thing I know about him, was his recent outlandish claim about how a General Authority comes to his house frequently, to talk about how all the apostles in my church know everything is a lie, but they keep quiet because they were each given a million dollars. That’s just goofy beyond goofy. Folks have done the research on which GA, based on his hints, and the story even gets goofier.

I don’t follow him closely enough to know why he said what he said. I don’t care if he’s a liar, deluded, wrong, etc. But I’ve researched and resolved his criticism - it falls into the same bucket as Krakauer’s claims about how Utah is so heavily inbred that a sizeable percentage of emergency room visits in SLC relate to congenital defects. Just not really worth a second glance.

I can’t really answer, because I really don’t know enough about the authors.

I know Chick Tracts are published against both Catholics and Mormons. I’m thinking whatever you folks’ response is to Jack Chick, is ok with me.

I have read the Grant Palmer claim, its on Mormonthink, but what if it happened to be true. For example what if the First Presidency and their counselors and the Apostles are privy to the fact that The Book of Abraham papyri, that are now in their possession, and could be translated and the findings published by independent Egyptologists, are in fact what has been claimed all along nothing more than funerary texts that were common in Egyptian burials. If they know that the BoA has absolutely no basis in these papyri, that they prove that it is not the writings of Abraham, would they admit it? Would they come out and declare it to be false? Because we all know that if it is false, then how can any other LDS scripture be trusted as true? And where would that leave the belief that JS was a prophet and capable of translating ancient languages. Unlike the case of the BoM, where the original plates are not here to be scrutinised by scholars, the papyri are here right now, yet there is no convincing evidence that they are in fact the writings of Abraham. So, it could be possible that the Bretheren know that it is not true, and that the whole thing is a sham, would it be in their interests to share that with the rest of the church? Well not so far. Actually they have it in their power to show definitively that Joseph was what he claimed, why haven’t they, if the papyri are the source of the BoA then why don’t they show us?

 

[SteveVH]

Not sure what post you read, but it was never said about LDS posters. His comment was about lying to the Senate.

Yes and I addressed that. I was just making a broader statement.

 

[SteveVH]

I have read the Grant Palmer claim, its on Mormonthink, but what if it happened to be true. For example what if the First Presidency and their counselors and the Apostles are privy to the fact that The Book of Abraham papyri, that are now in their possession, and could be translated and the findings published by independent Egyptologists, are in fact what has been claimed all along nothing more than funerary texts that were common in Egyptian burials. If they know that the BoA has absolutely no basis in these papyri, that they prove that it is not the writings of Abraham, would they admit it? Would they come out and declare it to be false? Because we all know that if it is false, then how can any other LDS scripture be trusted as true? And where would that leave the belief that JS was a prophet and capable of translating ancient languages. Unlike the case of the BoM, where the original plates are not here to be scrutinised by scholars, the papyri are here right now, yet there is no convincing evidence that they are in fact the writings of Abraham. So, it could be possible that the Bretheren know that it is not true, and that the whole thing is a sham, would it be in their interests to share that with the rest of the church? Well not so far. Actually they have it in their power to show definitively that Joseph was what he claimed, why haven’t they, if the papyri are the source of the BoA then why don’t they show us?

I think you make a great point. The BoA has already been proven to be a fraud by independent Egyptologists. It makes one wonder how many Mormons have seen these studies. But to your point, it does seem that they are withholding this. It is quite possible that they believe it anyway. This is different, however, than believing in the Book of Mormon or the Apostasy. There is certainly no objective evidence that proves anything concerning either of those subjects. In the case of the Book of Abraham, however, we have conclusive evidence that it is a fraud. To ignore that evidence is stretching it pretty thin.

 

[TexanKnight]

Yes and I addressed that. I was just making a broader statement.

Let me ask you…

If I tell you that the sky is purple with green polkadots, and you tell me “no, the sky is blue” and prove it to me, and then I tell you over and over that “no, I am confident the sky is purple with green polkadots and I am assured of it by the Holy Spirit” and you prove to me again that the sky is actually blue, and then I insist the sky is purple with green polkadots and ignore your proof

am I lying? am I brainwashed? Am I stupid? How would you describe my actions…do you believe the Holy Ghost really told me the sky is purple with green polkadots?

 

[SteveVH]

Let me ask you…

If I tell you that the sky is purple with green polkadots, and you tell me “no, the sky is blue” and prove it to me, and then I tell you over and over that “no, I am confident the sky is purple with green polkadots and I am assured of it by the Holy Spirit” and you prove to me again that the sky is actually blue, and then I insist the sky is purple with green polkadots and ignore your proof

am I lying? am I brainwashed? Am I stupid? How would you describe my actions…do you believe the Holy Ghost really told me the sky is purple with green polkadots?

TK, do not ask me to crawl into the mind of Mormon. I can’t. I understand your point very well because I have experienced the very same thing and it is extremely frustrating. The Mormon mind is somehow able to ignore objective truths in favor of their position. How they believe what they believe and why they believe what they believe in the presence of mountains of information to the contrary is absolutely beyond me. There is nothing at all wrong with pointing this out and holding them to an explanation based upon the facts.

But I don’t need to remind you that you once believed as they do. When you believed it was it because you were lying, or brainwashed, or stupid? I doubt it. As I said, I don’t have any idea how one comes to believe in this manner. My hope is that if we can keep them around for awhile they may be able to see what you are saying here. There is only a problem when it starts getting personal. If they leave the forum because they cannot find a legitimate argument to defend their position, then so be it. If they leave because they are tired of being insulted, that is another matter and it doesn’t reflect well on our Church. That’s all I’m saying.

Peace.

 

[TexanKnight]

TK, do not ask me to crawl into the mind of Mormon. I can’t. I understand your point very well because I have experienced the very same thing and it is extremely frustrating. The Mormon mind is somehow able to ignore objective truths in favor of their position. How they believe what they believe and why they believe what they believe in the presence of mountains of information to the contrary is absolutely beyond me. There is nothing at all wrong with pointing this out and holding them to an explanation based upon the facts.

But I don’t need to remind you that you once believed as they do. When you believed it was it because you were lying, or brainwashed, or stupid? I doubt it. As I said, I don’t have any idea how one comes to believe in this manner. My hope is that if we can keep them around for awhile they may be able to see what you are saying here. There is only a problem when it starts getting personal. If they leave the forum because they cannot find a legitimate argument to defend their position, then so be it. If they leave because they are tired of being insulted, that is another matter and it doesn’t reflect well on our Church. That’s all I’m saying.

Peace.

When I was LDS, I did not know the things I know now. What was taught to me made the LDS Church seem like a normal protestant faith. There was no internet or groups I could go to.

When finally faced with some of these issues, I did research. When I saw the same truths that we show Mormons here, I struggled, but did not argue blindly as do the Mormons here. I studied and went inactive, renounced my callings and eventually left the Church.

So, you really cannot compare me to these folks. They have much easier access to info than I did. And more of it. But when I was faced with the info we have shared regarding versions and Cumorah, etc., I did not argue in circles and “beat against the pricks” to quite the B of M, I listened, prayed, and left.

 

[PRmerger]

From my standpoint, if you’re a believing Christian of any stripe, looking for ammo to use in your arguments against my church, there’s enough real stuff to be found in our history and doctrines that there’s no reason to make anything up.

''zactly.

Is there a Mormon doctrine which you find the most difficult to accept?

 

[SteveVH]

When I was LDS, I did not know the things I know now. What was taught to me made the LDS Church seem like a normal protestant faith. There was no internet or groups I could go to.

When finally faced with some of these issues, I did research. When I saw the same truths that we show Mormons here, I struggled, but did not argue blindly as do the Mormons here. I studied and went inactive, renounced my callings and eventually left the Church.

So, you really cannot compare me to these folks. They have much easier access to info than I did. And more of it. But when I was faced with the info we have shared regarding versions and Cumorah, etc., I did not argue in circles and “beat against the pricks” to quite the B of M, I listened, prayed, and left.

Fair enough. And I pray that others will follow your lead.

 

[NeuroTypical]

Is there a Mormon doctrine which you find the most difficult to accept?

Well, to be quite honest, the doctrines I find most difficult to accept are some core doctrines that I share with all other Christians.

That God, perfect and just, all knowing and all powerful, loved us so much that he sent his son to get tortured and killed, and that somehow, that makes everything work out ok. Special blood washes sins clean? Gotta endure earth before having a chance at a better eternity? Not the most intuitive way to go about dealing with your children from my limited mortal perspective.

Anyway, I believe in God, and that’s how He seems to have set things up, so that’s good enough for me.

 

[TexanKnight]

Well, to be quite honest, the doctrines I find most difficult to accept are some core doctrines that I share with all other Christians.

That God, perfect and just, all knowing and all powerful, loved us so much that he sent his son to get tortured and killed, and that somehow, that makes everything work out ok. Special blood washes sins clean? Gotta endure earth before having a chance at a better eternity? Not the most intuitive way to go about dealing with your children from my limited mortal perspective.

Anyway, I believe in God, and that’s how He seems to have set things up, so that’s good enough for me.

interesting. So following a false prophet is ok as long as you have problems with core beliefs

 

[twopekinguys]

Who’s called you a liar? Please provide a link.

Bump for Neuro

 

[SteveVH]

Well, to be quite honest, the doctrines I find most difficult to accept are some core doctrines that I share with all other Christians.

That God, perfect and just, all knowing and all powerful, loved us so much that he sent his son to get tortured and killed, and that somehow, that makes everything work out ok. Special blood washes sins clean? Gotta endure earth before having a chance at a better eternity? Not the most intuitive way to go about dealing with your children from my limited mortal perspective.

Anyway, I believe in God, and that’s how He seems to have set things up, so that’s good enough for me.

I am sure that you aware that Jesus Christ “willingly” gave his life,

“No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.” (John 10:18 KJV)

The Father did not send his Son to punish him for the sins of man. There was only One who could perfectly fulfill the law in place of all sinners; the unblemished Lamb of God.

"The perfect fulfillment of the Law could be the work of none but the divine legislator, born subject to the Law in the person of the Son. In Jesus, the Law no longer appears engraved on tables of stone but ‘upon the heart’ of the Servant who becomes ‘a covenant to the people’ because he will ‘faithfully bring forth justice.’ Jesus fulfills the Law to the point of taking upon himself ‘the curse of the Law’ incurred by those who do not ‘abide by the things written in the book of the Law and do them,’ for his death took place to redeem them ‘from the transgression under the first covenant’." (CCC par 580)

Only Jesus, the “Righteous One”, could save mankind from their sins because no other human was righteous. The Father took no pleasure in the fact that his Son would undergo suffering and death; yet he loves us so much that he was willing to give his only Son in order that we might live with him for eternity.

Now there are some who get confused by the fact that the Father would send his Son to suffer and die for us. What kind of a Father would do that to his son?

I am a father and I would give my life in a split second for any of my children. I wouldn’t even have to think about it. Why? Because of my love for them. It would have been much easier for the Father to become incarnate himself and come and die for us to save his Son from such an ordeal. If you are a Father, can you imagine what it would take to give your son so that others might live? What kind of love is that? It is divine love, so powerful and awesome that we should fall on our faces when we even think of it. And the Son willingly took up his cross. He fulfilled the Father’s perfect will. We must also remember that there is only one God. The Father’s will is not separated from the will of the Son, they are the same in every way except relationship.

The bottom line is that it takes a greater amount of love to give one’s son than it does to give one’s self. We should be astounded at the love that God has for us.

 

[lynnettejane]

NT you have not addressed my post re the Book of Abraham, will you please give me your opinions

 

[NeuroTypical]

For example what if

This is the post you wanted me to respond to?

I don’t find “What if’s” very useful. I have a hard enough time trying to understand why things work the way they do. Changing something and then playing ‘who’s guess is best’ about what impact that should have, seems like a waste of time.

As far as the subject of the BoA in general, I note that egyptologists argue and fight amongst themselves as passionately as Kensyans and followers of Hyek. The whole area seems very personality-driven. It’s difficult to prove anything in such soft-science areas.

 

[SteveVH]

This is the post you wanted me to respond to?

I don’t find “What if’s” very useful. I have a hard enough time trying to understand why things work the way they do. Changing something and then playing ‘who’s guess is best’ about what impact that should have, seems like a waste of time.

As far as the subject of the BoA in general, I note that egyptologists argue and fight amongst themselves as passionately as Kensyans and followers of Hyek. The whole area seems very personality-driven. It’s difficult to prove anything in such soft-science areas.

Sorry, but I have to call you out on this one.

NT, I, more than most, pretty much hate it when someone asks me to watch some video. But I will ask you to please go this site and view this. I would be very interested in your reaction: www.bookofabraham.info.

This is not like the days of Joseph Smith when one would have been hard pressed to find anyone that would even attempt to translate ancient Egyptian. There was no one around to refute Joseph Smith’s translation. Not so today. There are many experts and not one of them agree that Joseph Smith was even close. In fact, he was so far off that it is evident that he had to have made the whole thing up.

Anyway, I hope you will take the time to view this. This is not a Mormon-bashing video by any means; he is very fair. But I will let you be the judge.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, to be quite honest, the doctrines I find most difficult to accept are some core doctrines that I share with all other Christians.

That God, perfect and just, all knowing and all powerful, loved us so much that he sent his son to get tortured and killed, and that somehow, that makes everything work out ok. Special blood washes sins clean? Gotta endure earth before having a chance at a better eternity? Not the most intuitive way to go about dealing with your children from my limited mortal perspective.

Really? You find this hard to accept, as compared to other Mormon doctrines?

Is there something specific to Mormon doctrine which you find difficult to accept?

 

[ffg]

Well, to be quite honest, the doctrines I find most difficult to accept are some core doctrines that I share with all other Christians.

That God, perfect and just, all knowing and all powerful, loved us so much that he sent his son to get tortured and killed, and that somehow, that makes everything work out ok. Special blood washes sins clean? Gotta endure earth before having a chance at a better eternity? Not the most intuitive way to go about dealing with your children from my limited mortal perspective.

Anyway, I believe in God, and that’s how He seems to have set things up, so that’s good enough for me.

I ask you to consider the possibility the things that son of God did before getting tortured were possibly important as well. I find it easier to understand the end of the story, when you have a better picture in meaning of the earlier events.

 

[zaffiroborant]

As far as the subject of the BoA in general, I note that egyptologists argue and fight amongst themselves as passionately as Kensyans and followers of Hyek. The whole area seems very personality-driven. It’s difficult to prove anything in such soft-science areas.

Except about the BoA, on that they agree, the JS translation is simply wrong. Nice job there though, muddying the water with innuendo, and making it about the manufactured failings of egyptologists in general instead of the failed translation of JS. I’ve seen LDS do this before both about egyptologists in general and using innuendo to besmirch specific individual egyptologists. But hey a bit of ad hominem here, poison the water there it’s all in a days work when you’re an LDS apologist.