Anti-Mormonism and biting the hand that feeds you

[_sock puppet]

From one who has done a fair amount of research into Mormon History all I can say is that people will justify anything if they have a vested interest to do so. All the talk about "revelation" is their way of reinforcing what they are interested in, believing that Mormonism is "true".

In a discussion with Brian Hales, Dan Vogel made this comment, "...I don’t believe we are involved in some cosmic game where God tests our ability to get revelation with a brain he created prone to delusion."

Mormonism was started by a con-man and carried on by a bunch of self righteous arrogant fanatics. I was reading the testimony of Lorenzo Snow from the Temple Lot Case recently, and he was asked if Joseph Smith had to obey his own laws. Snow could not make himself say yes. He hedged and hedged. They simply believed that Smith could do no wrong. None. Even when confronted with the evidence. He was asked if it would be adultery if anyone practiced polygamy before the 1843 "revelation" was given. He said yes. Then he was asked if Smith and Snow's sister had committed adultery. Nope. They didn't. Why? Because he was a "prophet". Did he have to have new laws presented to the church for common consent before becoming binding? Nope. He was the lawgiver. It took the lawyer almost 100 questions before he could get Snow to admit that yes, there was a law of common consent in relation to binding revelation. BUT HE STILL WOULD NOT APPLY THAT TO SMITH. All this evidence that Smith did break his own laws goes right out the window because they believed he could do no wrong. There HAS TO BE some OTHER explanation. Mopologists are the inventors of those "explanations".

That same belief is still prevalent today among the Mopologists. We see evidence for what it is. All they see is what their minds allow them to see filtered through the Joseph is a prophet lens. Mopo's today are acting the exact same way that those witnesses were acting during the Temple Lot Case and the Reed Smoot Hearings. They lie and contradict themselves but to them, it is no contradiction, because Jo was a prophet.

Why did some people choose to be burned alive with a madman who also claimed to be a prophet? (David Koresh) I don't know, but I'm glad that I don't have the kind of mind that would allow me to make that choice.

Thank you for that information, grindael. Do you have a link to the Q&A from Snow's testimony?

[_sock puppet]

From one who has done a fair amount of research into Mormon History all I can say is that people will justify anything if they have a vested interest to do so. All the talk about "revelation" is their way of reinforcing what they are interested in, believing that Mormonism is "true".

In a discussion with Brian Hales, Dan Vogel made this comment, "...I don’t believe we are involved in some cosmic game where God tests our ability to get revelation with a brain he created prone to delusion."

Mormonism was started by a con-man and carried on by a bunch of self righteous arrogant fanatics. I was reading the testimony of Lorenzo Snow from the Temple Lot Case recently, and he was asked if Joseph Smith had to obey his own laws. Snow could not make himself say yes. He hedged and hedged. They simply believed that Smith could do no wrong. None. Even when confronted with the evidence. He was asked if it would be adultery if anyone practiced polygamy before the 1843 "revelation" was given. He said yes. Then he was asked if Smith and Snow's sister had committed adultery. Nope. They didn't. Why? Because he was a "prophet". Did he have to have new laws presented to the church for common consent before becoming binding? Nope. He was the lawgiver. It took the lawyer almost 100 questions before he could get Snow to admit that yes, there was a law of common consent in relation to binding revelation. BUT HE STILL WOULD NOT APPLY THAT TO SMITH. All this evidence that Smith did break his own laws goes right out the window because they believed he could do no wrong. There HAS TO BE some OTHER explanation. Mopologists are the inventors of those "explanations".

That same belief is still prevalent today among the Mopologists. We see evidence for what it is. All they see is what their minds allow them to see filtered through the Joseph is a prophet lens. Mopo's today are acting the exact same way that those witnesses were acting during the Temple Lot Case and the Reed Smoot Hearings. They lie and contradict themselves but to them, it is no contradiction, because Jo was a prophet.

Why did some people choose to be burned alive with a madman who also claimed to be a prophet? (David Koresh) I don't know, but I'm glad that I don't have the kind of mind that would allow me to make that choice.

From FAIRMormon,

A man that violated this law in the Doctrine and Covenants, 1835 edition, until the acceptance of that revelation by the church, violated the law of the church if he practiced plural marriage. Yes sir, he would have been cut off from the church, I think I should have been if I had. Before the giving of that revelation in 1843 if a man married more wives than one who were living at the same time, he would have been cut off from the church. It would have been adultery under the laws of the church and under the laws of the state, too. – Temple Lot Case, p.320–322

Q. Could he [Joseph Smith] receive a revelation and act upon it, that was contrary in its teachings and provisions to the laws of the church to govern the church, without a violation of those laws?

A. Yes sir, I see that distinctly and understand it and I want you to understand it too. - Lorenzo Snow, deposition, Temple Lot transcript, respondent’s testimony (part 3), page 128, question 323

[_ludwigm]

...
I was reading the testimony of Lorenzo Snow from the Temple Lot Case recently, and he was asked if Joseph Smith had to obey his own laws. Snow could not make himself say yes. He hedged and hedged. They simply believed that Smith could do no wrong. None. Even when confronted with the evidence. He was asked if it would be adultery if anyone practiced polygamy before the 1843 "revelation" was given. He said yes. Then he was asked if Smith and Snow's sister had committed adultery. Nope. They didn't. Why? Because he was a "prophet". Did he have to have new laws presented to the church for common consent before becoming binding? Nope. He was the lawgiver. It took the lawyer almost 100 questions before he could get Snow to admit that yes, there was a law of common consent in relation to binding revelation. BUT HE STILL WOULD NOT APPLY THAT TO SMITH. All this evidence that Smith did break his own laws goes right out the window because they believed he could do no wrong. There HAS TO BE some OTHER explanation. Mopologists are the inventors of those "explanations".
...

This mentality is absolutely necessary to sit into the thrones of prophets seers and revelators (Lorenzo Snow reached it, not a wonder) --- or even to sit on a creepie of a 70's or of a local factotum as bishop or ward leader.

by the way sorry for the rare word "creepie". In Hungarian the hokedli or in German the Sockerl are more widely used words for lower positions.

And as You see below, the main advantage of a hokedli is having a drawer for some goods...
[#img] http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9 ... zVWth388cZ[/img]
.

[_Tobin]

Why do you think Mopologists of all tiers bite the hand that feeds them? Why do they deny the truth of what they themselves accept as the truth? Why do they call people liars who believe the exact same things they do?

Uhm, it is human nature to focus on what we think is important and rationalize that we knew the answer all along. For example, I've known for decades that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. Did I focus on the age of the females he was marrying? No. Do I care? Not really. Why? I think about it this way. If Joseph Smith was a fraud, then this is just another item in the long list of crimes he is guilty of. On the other hand, if Joseph Smith were commanded by God to do such a thing then the hope is he acted honorably in such circumstances and wasn't despoiling young immature girls. I certainly don't know that he was sleeping with 14 year old girls, though the marriages themselves aren't helpful and don't make him look very good in light of their ages.

Another thing to consider is that polygamists like King Solomon and King David likely had concubines and wives that were very young as well. If they too were doing as God directed, then this issue is not new.

[_Markk]

Why do you think Mopologists of all tiers bite the hand that feeds them? Why do they deny the truth of what they themselves accept as the truth? Why do they call people liars who believe the exact same things they do?

Uhm, it is human nature to focus on what we think is important and rationalize that we knew the answer all along. For example, I've known for decades that Joseph Smith was a polygamist. Did I focus on the age of the females he was marrying? No. Do I care? Not really. Why? I think about it this way. If Joseph Smith was a fraud, then this is just another item in the long list of crimes he is guilty of. On the other hand, if Joseph Smith were commanded by God to do such a thing then the hope is he acted honorably in such circumstances and wasn't despoiling young immature girls. I certainly don't know that he was sleeping with 14 year old girls, though the marriages themselves aren't helpful and don't make him look very good in light of their ages.

link here

[Guest]

-

[_Zadok]

Why do you think Mopologists of all tiers bite the hand that feeds them? Why do they deny the truth of what they themselves accept as the truth? Why do they call people liars who believe the exact same things they do?

I am new here and quickly see as I read some of the recent posts, that I am well out-classed by the minds that post here. So I apologize in advance for being what some might see as pedestrian.

When you say, "The hand that feeds them", I want to make a distinction between the group(s) that provide them something to write about, versus the manner by which they earn a living. It is my impression that most of the career apologists can trace their financial lively-hood back to a Church funded entity. As such they have a financial interest in supporting and defending the organization that pays their bills. (If you were the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and you opposed 'Obamacare' you wouldn't be secretary very long!)

So, as far as who they are going to defend and support....well that decision was made when they cashed the pay check. In my mind that is the hand that is feeding them.

The vicious anti-Mormon liars and attackers may be the apologists' Raison d'être but I don't see them as the entity that is buying the tacos.

[_Quasimodo]

I am new here and quickly see as I read some of the recent posts, that I am well out-classed by the minds that post here. So I apologize in advance for being what some might see as pedestrian.

You are not outclassed by all the minds that post here. I'll leave you to figure out which is which.

At any rate, NOM Refugee, welcome to the board! I look forward to reading your posts!

[_grindael]

Sockpuppet,

This line from the Snow Testimony appears to be an interpolation from the RLDS Editors. "It would have been adultery under the laws of the church and under the laws of the state, too." Even FAIR used it, but Brian Hales tried to castigate Jeremy Runnells for doing so also. The transcription of the Snow Testimony is here at the CHL, and it is in Folder, Ms-d 1160, Box 1, fd11, and is found online here, https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryM ... =IE4269434 See about page 120 or so.

[_grindael]

This is a pretty good overview of polygamy in the Bible. http://www.inplainsite.org/html/polygam ... Bible.html