Mormon Mitt and his buddy Larry Craig

[_beastie]

That was Beastie's strawman implication.

It most certainly was not. That was your bizarre interpretation of my comments. I was clearly using your present example to demonstrate a larger point about what bothers me about LDS apologetics in general.

Repeating my question in case you missed it:

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?

[_bcspace]

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.

You were the one who chimed in about my stating that Seth gave the typical response of the stymied and wondered who it was so that Seth could be stymied on a continual basis. But instead of giving and example of how Seth was not stymied, you changed the subject (avoision) to something you thought you could win (the strawman).

Try again.

[_bcspace]

It most certainly was not. That was your bizarre interpretation of my comments. I was clearly using your present example to demonstrate a larger point about what bothers me about LDS apologetics in general.

Yes, but in so doing, you avoided the example I gave, Seth.

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?

An error in correlation as you have described a business rather than a spiritual relationship and more avoision because you are attempted to change the focus from my example of Seth. So I ask again, is Seth the major author of any of these critical arguments?

[_beastie]

I'm going to repeat, one more time, my post that you have so badly misunderstood, highlighting and adding commentary to help you:

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. [commentary: I clearly used your one example to demonstrate a larger point about Mormon apologetics. I'm not talking about this specific case with seth anymore. I don't know how to be more explicit with you, bcspace.} 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.

I'm not interested in discussing seth in particular, other than to note his history as an intelligent and reasoned poster. My point was that the level of self delusion you engaged was demonstrative of LDS apologetics as a whole.

Your responses, insisting that I prove my point with seth's posts, make no sense in the context of my statements. My point doesn't have to do with whether or not seth is the main proponent of any point.

If you still do not understand my point, there is little I can say to further explain it.

Now answer the question, and I will modify it to satisfy your religious bias:

If a religious leader of a religion in which you had no belief, in your community sent some of his male followers overseas on mission trips, and then proceeded to try to convince the wives of those same followers to "marry" him in a religious ceremony, would you find any argument a persuasive defense of his actions?

[_bcspace]

I'm not interested in discussing seth in particular, other than to note his history as an intelligent and reasoned poster.

But that was the subject upon which I was discussing, Seth's invective response. I saw your concern but you made an error in correlation attaching it to Seth's invective.

Now answer the question, and I will modify it to satisfy your religious bias:

If a religious leader of a religion in which you had no belief, in your community sent some of his male followers overseas on mission trips, and then proceeded to try to convince the wives of those same followers to "marry" him in a religious ceremony, would you find any argument a persuasive defense of his actions?

Religious bias is the key and assuming you still are refering to an objective observer, I would say that, yes, an objective observer (one without bias) very well might find an argument that is a persuasive defense. Those with no tolerance for religion, or certain religions will almost invariably be offended.

[_beastie]

Religious bias is the key and assuming you still are refering to an objective observer, I would say that, yes, an objective observer (one without bias) very well might find an argument that is a persuasive defense. Those with no tolerance for religion, or certain religions will almost invariably be offended.

Please make sure you attend to the bolded portion:

If a religious leader of a religion in which you had no belief, in your community sent some of his male followers overseas on mission trips, and then proceeded to try to convince the wives of those same followers to "marry" him in a religious ceremony, would you find any argument a persuasive defense of his actions?

So what argument would you find persuasive, in regards to the said actions of a religious leader in which you had no belief?

[_Hoops]

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.

Other than your claim that I am incorrect, I agree.

[Anonymous]

I moved the content of this reply over to the evolution thread where it belongs.

[_Sethbag]

ditto

[_Mercury]

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.

Well Jason, how can a polytheist be christian? Christianity is a monotheistic system of belief, Mormonism believes in many gods.