Three Powerful Books

[_Themis]

No he didn’t. He started right off with loaded language and making an analogy that may be incorrect.

Sexual escapades is hardly loaded language. I never said rape or assault. We both agree that Joseph had sex with multiple women. In what way is comparing him to other religious leaders or founders commonly doing the same thing in the name of God incorrect MG? Everyone here would love to know.

[_mentalgymnast]

No he didn’t. He started right off with loaded language and making an analogy that may be incorrect.

Sexual escapades is hardly loaded language. I never said rape or assault. We both agree that Joseph had sex with multiple women. In what way is comparing him to other religious leaders or founders commonly doing the same thing in the name of God incorrect MG? Everyone here would love to know.

You said, “...using their positions of power to access sex with their followers is really really common. Also common is those religious leaders claiming God commanded them to do it.”

This statement puts a negative twist on Joseph Smith’s actions which may be unwarranted. Even in the cases where one source may lean towards coercion, another source will neutralize it. Across the board and looking at witnesses pro and con I’m not aware of first person evidence showing that Joseph was ‘guilty as charged’ by critics. I will hand you the fact that yes, there are many examples throughout history of men using their power to subjugate women.

I know you didn’t say rape or assault. Lemmie did.

Regards,
MG

[_honorentheos]

I take issue with that. Folks like him...and you, I would assume...don’t want to go there.

Regards,
MG

It isn't finding middle ground to work to a point where you can ignore it. It appears you keep using that phrase to argue you've figured out a way to counterbalance the negative evidence such that you know it exists but don't feel compelled by it to reevaluate the claims of the Mormon church. And that? That is exactly how confirmation bias works.

You present finding a middle way as a virtue that applies here. While I agree Buddhism is onto something when to comes to avoiding excesses in life, it doesn't apply to finding truth. Rather, one has to use the evidence to determine how probable something is to be true and then act as if it were a given - while remaining aware it's still subject to change if new evidence comes in. For all the lip service you give to finding the middle ground, you ultimately perform actions no differently than someone at the extreme of belief. What you don't do that one expects of someone who understands evidence only leads to probability rather than certitude is acknowledge that is what you are doing. Why? Because you are certain there is a creator god. Yeah, yeah you would say something like, "It seems likely, etc, etc," but everything you say and do here shows you assume there is a creator god and proceed from there. You then argue that is what those who disagree are also doing. It doesn't matter how often it gets pointed out that the evidence is presenting a strong case for the Mormon god being unlikely because x,y,z. To you, people are rejecting God a priori because you assume God a priori.

[_Lemmie]

What’s funny is how often you, IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, exactly contradict yourself....

I knew exactly what I was doing.

Lol. Of course you did.

[Even in the cases where one source may lean towards coercion, another source will neutralize it. Across the board and looking at witnesses pro and con I’m not aware of first person evidence showing that Joseph was ‘guilty as charged’ by critics. I will hand you the fact that yes, there are many examples throughout history of men using their power to subjugate women.

I know you didn’t say rape or assault. Lemmie did.

Actually, no, I was quoting Doc:

We know that he used his position of power to rape and sexually assault many women and girls, and used that power and influence to trick many women and girls into "marrying" him, regardless of their age or current marital status.

But I agree completely. By definition, when a 34 year old man has sex with a 14 year old, that is rape and sexual assault. By definition, when a man uses the religious power he holds over women and girls to influence them have sex with them, that is rape and sexual assault. There is nothing to prove, the facts are known.

In any case, your focus on how scandalized you seem by the language is missing the point- Joseph Smith engaged in utterly immoral behavior, and tried to cover it up with a religious program that caused untold damage. Honor’s point is key:

I think you make a very important point about how focus off the people involved allows MG to reframe it into something lost to history so whose to say what really happened?

...It seems to me MG is following the Hales in hand-waving it away. That's not dealing with the issues. That's finding a way to dismiss the issue to make room for faith. He's grossly misrepresenting what he is doing.

[_Themis]

Sexual escapades is hardly loaded language. I never said rape or assault. We both agree that Joseph had sex with multiple women. In what way is comparing him to other religious leaders or founders commonly doing the same thing in the name of God incorrect MG? Everyone here would love to know.

You said, “...using their positions of power to access sex with their followers is really really common. Also common is those religious leaders claiming God commanded them to do it.”

This statement puts a negative twist on Joseph Smith’s actions which may be unwarranted.

Only because we both can see that Joseph did use his position to access women. We can both see that Joseph did claim God commanded it. The fact is Joseph's behavior matches that of all these others who you don't like and consider their behavior as evil. It's not my fault he is doing the same as other religious leaders and founders who went after women. And some women religious leaders as well.

Even in the cases where one source may lean towards coercion, another source will neutralize it. Across the board and looking at witnesses pro and con I’m not aware of first person evidence showing that Joseph was ‘guilty as charged’ by critics

We have examples of Joseph using a lot of coercion on these women.

I will hand you the fact that yes, there are many examples throughout history of men using their power to subjugate women.

Which is the point. He ends up doing the same things we know is a common behavior of people using their position to convince people to have sex with them. Behavior you condemn as evil in all of them except Joseph's and his followers. The difference between us is I am consistent. If the behavior is considered as really bad and evil, one probably considers that God would not be the author of it. You do fine thinking this way in all cases except the one you are biased in favor of.

[_mentalgymnast]

You said, “...using their positions of power to access sex with their followers is really really common. Also common is those religious leaders claiming God commanded them to do it.”

This statement puts a negative twist on Joseph Smith’s actions which may be unwarranted.

Only because we both can see that Joseph did use his position to access women. We can both see that Joseph did claim God commanded it. The fact is Joseph's behavior matches that of all these others who you don't like and consider their behavior as evil. It's not my fault he is doing the same as other religious leaders and founders who went after women. And some women religious leaders as well.

Even in the cases where one source may lean towards coercion, another source will neutralize it. Across the board and looking at witnesses pro and con I’m not aware of first person evidence showing that Joseph was ‘guilty as charged’ by critics

We have examples of Joseph using a lot of coercion on these women.

I will hand you the fact that yes, there are many examples throughout history of men using their power to subjugate women.

Which is the point. He ends up doing the same things we know is a common behavior of people using their position to convince people to have sex with them. Behavior you condemn as evil in all of them except Joseph's and his followers. The difference between us is I am consistent. If the behavior is considered as really bad and evil, one probably considers that God would not be the author of it. You do fine thinking this way in all cases except the one you are biased in favor of.

When all is said and done there are going to be conflicting views on the practice of polygamy. Critics use the arguments against polygamy as another grievance to put in the bucket of issues I mentioned up thread. The more things added to the bucket of disbelief, the stronger the evidence, right? Wrong. Not if those so called evidences don’t give the weight necessary to topple the bucket.

http://www.conflictofjustice.com/joseph ... -polygamy/

Regards,
MG

[_Morley]

MG. Earlier in the thread, you had this exchange.

It seems you don't believe facts serve any purpose other than to confirm a bias. If that's wrong, explain how you see evidence working to overcome a bias.

Hey honor, my playtime here is over for now. We have family coming into visit soon. They’re flying in from Missouri. If and when I see there’s anything more that I can add to the conversation I will return.

But now you've returned.

The “kids” have flown the coop and are back home in Missouri. Coming back to this thread to make a comment.

Welcome back, mentalgymnast. Perhaps now you'll respond to honorentheos.

[_mentalgymnast]

MG. Earlier in the thread, you had this exchange.

Hey honor, my playtime here is over for now. We have family coming into visit soon. They’re flying in from Missouri. If and when I see there’s anything more that I can add to the conversation I will return.

But now you've returned.

The “kids” have flown the coop and are back home in Missouri. Coming back to this thread to make a comment.

Welcome back, mentalgymnast. Perhaps now you'll respond to honorentheos.

Apparently I didn’t make myself clear. Facts do matter and one must go where the facts lead. One my have a bias towards belief in the restoration narrative, for example. If the facts overwhelmingly lead towards questioning the foundational claims of that narrative then an honest person would have to re-evaluate their position.

Doc posted a list of twelve issues that for him fill the bucket of unbelief to the point where the bucket tips over. I went through the same list and explained, in summary form, why that list doesn’t have the weight that he puts to it. He sees the list as a support for his confirmation bias. Even if contrary evidence or alternate ways of viewing evidence come before him. His ways are set in cement. As are yours.

On the other hand, if I was to see overwhelmingly convincing evidence that LDS truth claims were bogus I would leave my personal biases behind and become agnostic towards Mormonism. But I honestly don’t see the preponderance of evidence leading to disbelief.

Regards,
MG

[_Themis]

When all is said and done there are going to be conflicting views on the practice of polygamy.

Your view is clear and agrees with everyone else's when it comes to other religious leaders, but not the one you want to believe in. This is inconsistent and hypocritical. You cannot explain how they differ. A popular argument is it is ok if God commands it, but that is what they all claim to get away with behavior we all see as wrong.

Critics use the arguments against polygamy as another grievance to put in the bucket of issues I mentioned up thread.

They are just being consistent in their condemnation where you are not. How are they different MG. You have never said. That would seem to be important in making a reasonable position of why Joseph should be seen differently than all the others you condemn.

The more things added to the bucket of disbelief, the stronger the evidence, right? Wrong. Not if those so called evidences don’t give the weight necessary to topple the bucket.

The bucked is not unbelief. It just holds the evidence. Evidence of Joseph doing things you consider very wrong if done by anyone not Joseph or his followers. All you can do is make the same argument the rest of the scoundrels do which is God told me to do it.

http://www.conflictofjustice.com/joseph ... -polygamy/

The same thing others do. Promise salvation for them and their family. Pressure them. Threatened some. Give some of them little time to decide. He did it behind Emma's back. I wonder why God never sent an angel to Emma like he did to Joseph LOL.

[_Themis]

On the other hand, if I was to see overwhelmingly convincing evidence that LDS truth claims were bogus I would leave my personal biases behind and become agnostic towards Mormonism. But I honestly don’t see the preponderance of evidence leading to disbelief.

Regards,
MG

You are very stuck in Mormonism, which I can relate to. The preponderance of evidence does exist and you have admitted to not knowing some of it like the Book of Abraham. You still cannot deal with the fact most former believers had bias for church truth claims, not against. It's the amount of evidence that changed their minds and overcame their bias in favor of the LDS church.