Mormon Mitt and his buddy Larry Craig

[_bcspace]

The fact that bcspace can believe that sethbag has been stymied on a continual basis speaks volumes in regards to the capacity of the human mind to engage in self-deception.

I think, in the end, this is what disturbs me so much about internet Mormon apologetics. It isn't that they believe strange things and craft convoluted arguments to support those beliefs, but it is that while they do so, they so confidently proclaim the soundness of their own arguments and the weakness of critics. To me, this is delusional behavior, and it bothers me that human beings are so comfortable with delusional behavior. It makes me despair for our future.

I'm not saying that apologists have to be delusional to keep believing - I'm saying they have to be delusional to act as if their arguments are so superior and tight that critics are continually "stymied". This demonstrates a fundamental disconnect to reality. These arguments may satisfy those who already believe in the LDS church for spiritual reasons, but these same arguments appear quite weak to those who have no such compelling reason to believe.

By your own logic, you are guilty of the same self-deception you accuse me (us) of. The difference is that I provided an example (and Sethbag has yet to provide the requested evidence) and you have not. Without evidence and examples, all you have left are two bad choices; you can keep telling yourself that you are not deluded or you can prove it.

[_beastie]

By your own logic, you are guilty of the same self-deception you accuse me (us) of. The difference is that I provided an example (and Sethbag has yet to provide the requested evidence) and you have not. Without evidence and examples, all you have left are two bad choices; you can keep telling yourself that you are not deluded or you can prove it.

There are so many examples that provide evidence of my assertion that it's hard to pick just one, but I will.

Let's take Joseph Smith's polyandry and the manner in which he practiced polygamy in general. Now pretend that a completely objective outsider who does not already believe in Mormonism has been presented with these details and then is presented with the apologists' defense of this behavior.

Can you tell me with a straight face that the outsider observer would find these apologetic defenses superior and convincing, and regard the critics' arguments as pathetically weak?

[_bcspace]

Can you tell me with a straight face that the outsider observer would find these apologetic defenses superior and convincing, and regard the critics' arguments as pathetically weak?

Strawman and avoision. But in the spirit in which your strawman was given, yes I can.

Off the strawman can you tell me with a straight face that Sethbag is the main author of critical arguments on that subject?

[_Sethbag]

I don't claim to be the main author of anything except my own words, and freely acknowledge that my thoughts and words have been guided by the writings and statements of others. This isn't about the Doctrine of Seth.

Go back and re-read the Evolution thread, and especially my most recent post. I predict that you'll come back with some variation of "the Bible Dictionary doesn't really reflect LDS doctrine, because the Bible Dictionary was never voted on unanimously in General Conference" or some such crap. Ok, so the Bible Dictionary printed in every copy of the LDS edition of the Bible, under the direction of the Lord's Anointed, for the past multiple decades, cannot be trusted to accurately reflect LDS beliefs, but some guy calling himself BCSpace on the Internet has it all figured out. And you're telling me that I'm the delusional one?

[_beastie]

Strawman and avoision. But in the spirit in which your strawman was given, yes I can.

Off the strawman can you tell me with a straight face that Sethbag is the main author of critical arguments on that subject?

Why is this a strawman? You made an observation about one poster in particular, who has a history of creating well reasoned and supported posts. I then took your example and shared my conclusions about what your words demonstrated in terms of apologia in general. Now you want me to talk specifically about seth.

My example was not strawman and "avoision". It was directly related to my previous statement about what bothers me about LDS apologetics.

Aside from that, the fact that you claim you can say an objective observer would find the apologists' defense of Smith's polyandry and polygamy in general superior to the critics, once again, speaks volumes about the depth of your self-deception.
But I'll try once one.

If a business leader in your community sent some of his male employees overseas on business trips, and then proceeded to try to convince the wives of those same employees to "marry" him in a religious ceremony, would you find any argument a persuasive defense of his actions?

[_Inconceivable]

what the #$@? happened to the thread? I was only gone for 3 hours.


Time to rename the board, "ADDMD"


(Attention Deficit Disorder Mormon Discussions)

not that I had anything to do with this!


Nehor, are too too too toooo (probably).

[_Jason Bourne]

As the campaign has developed we really see very little of what ya all crow about here. I doubt it will be more then it is now. No real big deal.

This will totally change if Mitt wins. Remember the massive anti-Clinton paranoia with all the Clinton conspiracy theorists out there saying how many people he'd had killed and whatnot? Well, they'll all be digging up anti-Mormon stuff if Mitt wins. You know that Godmakers kind of naïve anti-Mormon conspiracy theory crap? There will be ten times as many websites, if not more, as there are now telling this kind of stuff. Being president seems to really focus a lot of folks' attention on you, and with so much juicy material available in the early history of Mormonism, it'll be like a field day to the delusional fringe. You'll see both true, and untrue anti-Mormon stuff. To an extent the church might be vindicated by the obvious falseness of all the really made-up anti-Mormon stuff, however they'll take a pounding from all the true stuff. It's beyond doubt that there's a segment of the population who really gets into anti-President stuff, with both Clinton and GW Bush having their camps of really intense detractors. Well, there will be an anti-Romney camp, if he wins, except they'll be digging out juicy little morsels like Fanny Alger, for their websites.

Bottom line is that Mitt Romney believes, in the eyes of a lot of people who either know this now, or who will know it once he's President, that a young Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God, who used a magic rock in a hat to translate golden plates that we don't have today because an angel "took them back", and that this same guy sent men away on missions and then "married" and had sex with their wives while they were gone, and that he racked up 30-40+ "spiritual wives" during his lifetime, and lied about it to his wife, and the public, and invented whole volumes of scripture that are transparently fake (the Book of Abraham, whatever the mopologists think, is, to anyone not up to their necks in Mormonism, transparently fake). It will be a case of our own United States president believing in this guy, who Richard Dawkins calls a transparent fraud, a charlatan, a mountebank. Dawkins' view will be shared by a lot more people if Mitt Romney wins, and a lot of the creepiness and just plain laughable charlatanry of early Mormonism becomes more well known.

I really doubt it. What is so strange about this vs and EV Christian that believes in Adam and Eve, the Fall, Jesus raising frmo the dead, the rapture and tribulation and so on. Just 200 years of tradition I guess. But we will see if it all plays out.

[_Jason Bourne]

Let's remember that Mitt is not Christian, he is LDS. And Craig is a self-described Methodist, which is a whole 'nother argument.

Let;s remember that LDS are Christians which makes Mitt a Christian. Take your LDS are not Christian argument elsewhere. It is asinine.

Millions of people may call a horse a "dog", but it's till a horse. LDS are not Christians, despite your protestations.

Idiots can say LDS are not Christian and there may be millions that think this. They are is incorrect as you. AND in its purest sense. Mormonism believes they are the only VALID Christian Church and the rest are simple apostates.

[_Inconceivable]

Let's remember that Mitt is not Christian, he is LDS. And Craig is a self-described Methodist, which is a whole 'nother argument.

Let;s remember that LDS are Christians which makes Mitt a Christian. Take your LDS are not Christian argument elsewhere. It is asinine.

Millions of people may call a horse a "dog", but it's till a horse. LDS are not Christians, despite your protestations.

Idiots can say LDS are not Christian and there may be millions that think this. They are is incorrect as you. AND in its purest sense. Mormonism believes they are the only VALID Christian Church and the rest are simple apostates.

Of course Mormons are Christians. However, the definition becomes less meaningful by the century. Christian is a term defined more by the dogma one represents.

If Jesus really desired to convey a standard to the world, He would have been much more clear. It's difficult for me to believe He asked a lieing, adulterous pirate to set the record straight.

Then again, to be a Christian and a Follower of Christ. These labels are not necessarilly synonimous.

[_bcspace]

I don't claim to be the main author of anything except my own words, and freely acknowledge that my thoughts and words have been guided by the writings and statements of others. This isn't about the Doctrine of Seth.

That was Beastie's strawman implication.

Go back and re-read the Evolution thread, and especially my most recent post. I predict that you'll come back with some variation of "the Bible Dictionary doesn't really reflect LDS doctrine, because the Bible Dictionary was never voted on unanimously in General Conference" or some such crap.

So it's crap if the intro to the BD itself says it's not doctrinal?

Ok, so the Bible Dictionary printed in every copy of the LDS edition of the Bible, under the direction of the Lord's Anointed, for the past multiple decades, cannot be trusted to accurately reflect LDS beliefs, but some guy calling himself BCSpace on the Internet has it all figured out. And you're telling me that I'm the delusional one?

You are. You seem to be afflicted with the same delusion that haunts many older generation LDS who inccorectly assumed that the statement of any Apostle (contrary to D&C 107) is doctrine.