DiscussMormonism.com

If you want to express your disgust with Joseph Smith, his alleged behavior, and the supposed intimate details of his life, there are other boards where you can discuss those topics.

Here we demand respect for the prophet and other deceased members of the church who aren't here to defend themselves against rumors and cherry-picked quotes. Speculation about their sexual behaviors are not going to be tolerated.

Skylla

There you have it, folks. Joseph Smith is now officially off-limits at MADB. If you want to criticize the prophet, go to another board.

On a closely related note, Runtu's recent poll over there about whether the Book of Mormon is an ancient text revealed that the critic:LDS ratio is extremely off-balance. There were 16 non-LDS respondents and 82 LDS. A few years ago the number of critics and LDS was about even. I suspect that things will continue to decline there as the moderators feel the need to insulate their posters from criticism more and more.

CaliforniaKid wrote:

If you want to express your disgust with Joseph Smith, his alleged behavior, and the supposed intimate details of his life, there are other boards where you can discuss those topics.

Here we demand respect for the prophet and other deceased members of the church who aren't here to defend themselves against rumors and cherry-picked quotes. Speculation about their sexual behaviors are not going to be tolerated.

Skylla

What else is there to talk about? As Pres Hinckley said, it all comes down to whether or not an individual believes Joseph. So what else are they going to talk about?

in my opinion, MAD has made it well known that the purpose of the board is not to ATTACK Mormons or Mormonism.

Critics are welcome to challenge ideas about Mormonism, and even Joseph Smith. But you can't outright attack his character.

I don't see this as taking Joseph Smith off the menu, but you should remember that this is their prophet and they would like a minimal amount of respect to be shown.

Personally, I agree with Skylla.

There are some issues that will be impossible to discuss without seeming to attack Joseph Smith - even if you use reasonable, careful language. For example, you can't discuss whether or not he had sex with his polyandrous wives without sounding like you're attacking him.

On the same thread, Juliann declared:

I've also had enough of the "trash dead Mormon women with leering accusations" threads. Thanks.

Given how she interprets any criticism of polygamy as "trashing dead Mormon women with leering accusations", you can imagine how much of polygamy can be discussed, either.

That's ok. It's been heading towards Sunday School status for quite a while, sooner or later they'll get what they want.

hey Beastie, you should make a video on youtube responding to Sorenson, That would be cool.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNfNV52l3ho

Here is the URL Address to that Discussion Thread:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=33247

Here is this Post from Dale, From that MA&D Discussion Thread:

From Dale:

In a lot of cases i found i know more than critics do. They have failed again and again to document Joseph Smiths alleged misconduct. Slandering somebody with misconduct hardly makes the accuser well informed. I have a copy of In Sacred Lonliness by Todd Compton, and i don't see it. I like the book, but the author speculates about sex way to much. So people take his unproven speculations as fact to say Joseph Smith was guilty of misconduct. I see his research abused all the time.

I have tried to labor with these critics, but they fight answers. I decided to be bold with such critics. I am challenging them to document their slander against the prophet Joseph Smith. If they can't on the spot do it i am done with them. If they could just point to something out of in Sacred Lonliness that unquestionably proves misconduct and i will take a look. I have a copy, and the critic had better have a copy to. I have my copy marked up.

( http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... opic=33247 )

The Book 'In Sacred Loneliness,' Authored By Todd Compton, has an average of a four Star rating at Amazon.com.
Please Click Here:

CaliforniaKid wrote:
On a closely related note, Runtu's recent poll over there about whether the Book of Mormon is an ancient text revealed that the critic:LDS ratio is extremely off-balance. There were 16 non-LDS respondents and 82 LDS. A few years ago the number of critics and LDS was about even. I suspect that things will continue to decline there as the moderators feel the need to insulate their posters from criticism more and more.

That is precisely why I didn't vote. I didn't want the results to encourage another purge. Since there were only 16 that voted con, I would assume there were others who shared my hesitation.

Here is another Post, from the MA&D Moderator Named 'Skylla', on that Discussion Thread, over there:

From Skylla:

You don't know his sexual conduct and we don't allow sex threads.

Skylla

( http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 33247&st=0 )

Hmm, since they're no longer going to allow speculation about the sexual nature of Joseph Smith' marriages, does that mean believers will no longer be able to assert these marriages were dynastic, platonic sealings? And does this mean no one can refer to the scripture that explains why polygamy is NOT adultery?

Scottie,

I think you're wrong that this is simply asking for these things to be discussed respectfully. I agree it isn't necessary to use vulgar terms when discussing it, by the way, but I think the topic must be discussed, otherwise the topic can't be fully explored. I think this is a new decision, and means that the topic won't be allowed to be discussed at all.

You can see Juliann's thinking in the Helen Mar thread, where she accused Cooper of this:

Third, stop treating Mormon women as stupid dupes who were traded like corn. It is offensive and untrue.

What exactly had Cooper posted that was so offensive other than to address the actual topic????

The posters making vulgar insinuations were believers, like Hammer:

I wonder sometimes when these issues are brought up by men if it isn't there way of getting off themselves. A person of any personal integrity wouldn't feel a need to bring such things up as what another man did according to individual interpretation.

These kinds of people totally want to avoid the word "God" or "Holy Spirit". They can't identify with these, only the alledged sexual practice of a man long dead.

or Zak:

What that God nocker her up when she was 13?

True there is a big difference. Helen Mar Didn't have any children by Joseph Smith.

MADdites want something that can't exist anywhere but in their imagination - they want to be able to claim they confront the assertions of critics boldly, yet in a way that leaves those struggling in the faith strengthened in that same faith. The reason that rarely happens in real life is because what the critics assert is usually true, and the only thing apologists can do is try to "spin" it, which only works with people who will continue to believe NO MATTER WHAT.

The MADdies don't really want a Sunday School board, but because they yearn for something that can never exist in reality, that's where they've been heading for a long time.

I have to admit what amuses me about this is that evidently all the biased moderation still isn't enough. I think that's what you call a "little clue".