Mormonism

He was a liar a crook and a fraud

Make of that what you will






Oh, and Moon Quakers

 

Did he allow black people to hold positions of authority in the church while he was in charge of it?
You can be an slavery abolitionist and still a racist.

 

believe propaganda if you want. You probably believe Bush was behind 911 and Mafia, CIA and KGB conspired together to kill JFK. As it say in 1 Nephi the mist of darkness is of the devil and blinds the eyes of the children of men.

 

Those are lame ass answers and you did not even adress the issues - the changes were NOT all grammar either

You really need to actually stop drinking the kool aid on this matter - it was and is built on a lie

 

I'm not getting involved in this argument, but I would like to point out that it is just as easy to deduce that you are believing propaganda as well, vampyregirl

 

OOOKAY-

Slight derail. But just for the sake of my own clarification. Is this what is commonly refered to as a "straw man fallacy, or straw man argument"?



ON TOPIC:
I'll admit I have not read the book of Mormon, but if we are going to cite all the changes, or throw evidence out suggesting the questionability of moral stances. Can you hit up some evidence for a noob like me?

 

Not long ago i would have ripped into you but now that i'm trying to be a better person i have to refrain from doing that. Theres clearly no point talking to you anyway. So goodbye.

 

www.lds.org can give you more info than i can.

 

Its a useless exercise to try and compare our attitudes today with those from over a hundred and fifty years ago.My grandparents were Edwardian and today would be considered racists but in their day such attitudes were the norm.These days a man who had a sexual relationship with a girl of ten would be considered a pedophile yet the age of consent in a lot of American states prior to 1920 was ten years of age.l

 

I see - you have no real answers so take your ball and go home.

Have you considered joining a mormon site? Call me crazy but that might suit you better than a site that is focused on martial arts when you actually (a) have no clue about them and (b) don't even do one or have the inclination. At least you could all say how awesome the grape juice tastes without having to, you know provide ANY evidence that stands up to scrutiny by a 5 year old

 

I don't think so. I think it's called "poisoning the well". Namely introducing other unsavoury factors or unrelated issues that are then sought to be associated with the other person's argument and so make it look as bad or in the same category.
I could be wrong though. Logical fallacies are hard to spot sometimes.

 

Not if you are taking something as "the word of God" - who is supposedly timeless and beyond such things

oh dear, have I found another fly in the ointment?

 

Here you go liero.

http://bibtruth.com/1vis.html

The editor/owner of the site is an ex-Mormon himself and he points out a lot of inconsistencies and falsehoods.

 

Depends if the people from that time, and their followers in this time, are claiming to have a unique insight into what God requires of us or some other eternal truth. If they do that I reserve the right to judge their behaviour.

Let's face it...if Moroni had time to recite the whole book of Mormon to Joseph Smith he would have been better off leaving out all the last lost tribes of Israel nonsense and instead mention that Mormon's might actually be on to something if they treated black people as equals and stopped all that randy stuff with multiple wives.
Maybe mentioning DNA and antibiotics would have been a good thing too?

 

I've aready investigated the claims of the apostates.

 

Hahahaha. Brilliant. Do people still use that word?

 

I'd have said simple ad hominem. As I understand it, poisoning the well is a specific subset of ad hominem where your opponent bad-mouths you before you get a chance to speak. Doing so in a way that primes the audience to react negatively to what you have to say. A bit like if two politicians were having a debate and the first to speak said "My opponent will no doubt mention the recession as justification for budget cuts. This is a common tactic used by the X party. We all know better by now than to take this argument seriously."

But as you say, they're often hard to categorise and I could be wrong also. It's made harder by the fact that most fallacies aren't exclusive and it's possible to commit more than one simultaneously.

 

Since we are discussing articles of faith what do facts have to do with it? If it was provable then we would be discussing facts and faith would have nothing to do with it.

By faith it is possible that he had multiple first visions and each of them is true. Such is the power of belief. God can do whatever he wants and he can go back and redo it and both of them are now true.

Isn't any different than discussing crop circles, the loch ness monster, Atlantis or alien abductions with true believers.

 

Or Moon Quakers...never forget the Moon Quakers

 

So, care to clear up a few of the questions? Specifically....

(1) Why is there so many different versions of his first vision?
(2) Why did no one ever hear the official version until almost two decades after it had first happened according to his claims?
(3) Why did, after being told by God not to join any other churches, did he attempt to join a Methodist church?
(4) What about the Book of Abraham, which was essentially discovered to be a fraudulent work? The best response LDS could come up with for defending it was "the proof of the truth of the book of Abraham does not come by human means."

And so on, and so on.