bcspace wrote:If I did what does that prove? Was I arguing that that Joseph Smith didn't conceal those marriages? Or was I arguing that such has no catastrophic effect?
It wasn't the latter, as you know. Even if that had been your point, that it has "no catastrophic effect" is not an argument, but just the way you deal with the evidence. One need not be a dishonest yellow journalist to find Joseph's actions troubling. That you can't even acknowledge that is quite telling.
If I did what does that prove? Was I arguing that that Joseph Smith didn't conceal those marriages? Or was I arguing that such has no catastrophic effect?
It wasn't the latter, as you know
No, I don't know. I've never claimed to have an answer to everything, but again, I've been down too many rabbit holes to know that even if I can't find one now, I probably will in the future.
Doesn't matter. You seem to be under the impression that anyone who finds Joseph's behavior in this troubling and doesn't find apologetic answers satisfactory is dishonest and has bad motivations.
Your argument, if you remember, was that if Emma had been taught about plural marriage before 1843, that means Joseph could not have concealed his marriages to the Partridge sisters and the consummation of both. (Of course, that argument is a non sequitur.)
I find it troubling that he hid his relationships from Emma. You don't, for whatever reason. That doesn't make either of us dishonest or yellow journalists.
bcspace wrote:It does. Your foundation is in superficiality, not in the underlying doctrines.
Really? Are you saying that if someone does not adhear to your understanding/belief in a given doctrine, any thing they say contrary to it is dishonest?
RockSlider wrote:Really? Are you saying that if someone does not adhear to your understanding/belief in a given doctrine, any thing they say contrary to it is dishonest?
That's exactly what he's saying. This is why I have reluctantly decided not to engage him anymore. There is no point in discussing anything with someone who can't just disagree with you but starts from the position that you are dishonest.
That doesn't make either of us dishonest or yellow journalists.
It does. Your foundation is in superficiality, not in the underlying doctrines.
So...let me get this straight. If anyone is bothered by the fact that Joseph hid some of his plural marriages from Emma, they are dishonest? Is that what you are saying here, BC?
liz3564 wrote:So...let me get this straight. If anyone is bothered by the fact that Joseph hid some of his plural marriages from Emma, they are dishonest? Is that what you are saying here, BC?
That's what he said to me, anyway. I'm surprised this is the first you've heard this from him, as he's been saying this for a long time: if you are bothered by church issues and aren't persuaded by bcspace and other apologists, you are dishonest and have evil intent.
So, join the club, Liz. You're dishonest, too.
By the way, I am wondering where I can find the underlying doctrine that says you should marry women without your wife's consent.
Drifting wrote:This is quite an interesting question and not meant sarcastically.
On the one hand the Church encourages people to use the Internet to preach and speak about the Gospel and the Church. On the other you are advised to stay away from the fringe elements of Mormonism and stick with the mainstream subjects as well as avoiding anti-Mormon material and discussions.
Should you be here?
Those who understand the risks, the dangers and have the mental and spiritual aptitude should view and post things to sites like this. Those who have not reached this level should continue to post things on Facebook.
Drifting wrote:This is quite an interesting question and not meant sarcastically.
On the one hand the Church encourages people to use the Internet to preach and speak about the Gospel and the Church. On the other you are advised to stay away from the fringe elements of Mormonism and stick with the mainstream subjects as well as avoiding anti-Mormon material and discussions.
Should you be here?
Those who understand the risks, the dangers and have the mental and spiritual aptitude should view and post things to sites like this. Those who have not reached this level should continue to post things on Facebook.
Thanks CSA,
How does a member recognise that their level of mental and spiritual aptitude is strong enough to let them face discussions of a non correlated variety, such as takes place on here?
“We look to not only the spiritual but also the temporal, and we believe that a person who is impoverished temporally cannot blossom spiritually.” Keith McMullin - Counsellor in Presiding Bishopric
"One, two, three...let's go shopping!" Thomas S Monson - Prophet, Seer, Revelator