Quoted:



To be fair the "double standard" that I see is people being so opposed to other people's faith, yet can't even conceive of someone being reasonably opposed to theirs.



It is their thinking that their faith is above an beyond the problem of charismatic leaders convincing people fantastic, unsubstantiated, mystical claims.



I did not mean to imply there was some conspiracy on the site to ban LDS members.



I suspect that the reason many people who attack christianity are banned/warned is that there is a certain portion of that religious population on this site who reports things at the drop of a had.



Mods aren't coming by reporting things for you...if you think Christians are attacking Mormonism too much, pull a card from their playbook and report them. FSM knows they've done it to me in the past.



Me personally? I've only reported 1, maybe 2 people for personal attacks in the past. Never reported anyone for attacking someone else's opinion (and religion is nothing more than an opinion).  You can be that guy if you want, call the "special protected opinion that you can't make fun of" police.  Have at it, its not my bag.



If you don't, realize nothing will likely happen. No warnings. No locks. Nothing.

 

Quoted:
YAP YAP YAP.





Do you even know the context in which that was spoken.  Have you ever even read 2 Cor. 11, when Paul was boasting?   I guess that makes Paul just like Joseph Smith.





In the original context, Joseph was facing intense persecution by many people, including some he had previously considered to be his friends. The statement about "boasting" was made about a month before he was killed. He made it after reading 2 Corinthians 11: to the congregation. Note the following statement by Paul, in this scripture:

Paul: "let no one think me foolish; but if you do, receive me even as foolish, that I also may boast a little"

Again I say, let no one think me foolish; but if you do, receive me even as foolish, that I also may boast a little. That which I am speaking, I am not speaking it as the Lord would, but as in foolishness, in this confidence of boasting. Since many boast according to the flesh, I will boast also. For you, being so wise, bear the foolish gladly. (2 Corinthians 11:16-19)



Paul then launches into a literary tirade where he claims many things to make himself look the fool, to contrast himself with those who the Corinthians were listening to for their words of salvation, instead of to him. His words were meant to compare and contrast what the Saints at Corinth were doing against what he was offering.



Nice to see you leave out the other part of Joseph's statement right after reading this chapter of Paul's to the congregation:



   "My object is to let you know that I am right here on the spot where I intend to stay. I, like Paul, have been in perils, and oftener than anyone in this generation. As Paul boasted, I have suffered more than Paul did, I should be like a fish out of water, if I were out of persecutions. Perhaps my brethren think it requires all this to keep me humble. The Lord has constituted me curiously that I glory in persecution. I am not nearly so humble as if I were not persecuted. If oppression will make a wise man mad, much more a fool. If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them. When facts are proved, truth and innocence will prevail at last. My enemies are no philosophers: they think that when they have my spoke under, they will keep me down; but for the fools, I will hold on and fly over them."
Perhaps M-1975 is unaware of Paul's advice? Or perhaps he  applies a double standard where Paul is allowed such literary and rhetorical license, but Joseph is not?



Such double standards are, sadly, the stock-in-trade of critics like him.



In short, Joseph is using the scripture in Paul as a counter-argument (or a rhetorical device)--he is responding to his critics, and demonstrating that (as with Paul) true messengers from God are often persecuted by those who should listen, while the false and apostate are praised.
Just another sidenote about the source they are using.  The history of the church is not a primary source.  It is complied from accounts of people that were there, but is not 100% accurate.



It worth saying that in the general reliability of the History of the Church, in view of the way it was put together, it is not the overall thrust or narrative that is likely to be inaccurate, but the nuances, the tone, the details. This is precisely the opposite problem from that which anti-Mormon critics would have us see in it: they think the overall story of the History incorrect (e.g. divine intervention, revelation, Joseph Smith's prophetic calling, etc.), but they want us to accept the details of tone and mood that it furnishes—or at least they do when those details seem to put the Prophet in a bad light.



It's amusing that the very same people who vehemently reject the History of the Church as an unreliable source when it seems to support the LDS position clutch it to their bosoms as an unparalleled historical treasure when they think they can use it as a weapon against the alleged errors of Mormonism.





Just more hypocrisy and deception from LDS critics.

Quoted:



I'm beginning to think you're a closet Mormon.  

Quoted:

There was no double standard.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Quoted:

I think you're being paranoid.

Quoted:

You obviously have a high opinion of humans.

Quoted:

Because a deity who becomes a man in order to reconcile the wrongs with their own life is a deity that is contrary to what you try to portray Him as.

Quoted:





It is not me who portrays God thusly. It is the Bible which says God did all of those heinous acts, and more.

Quoted:

Your criticism of the fig tree is a huge stretch, and you don't even understand what was going on in that passage.

Quoted:


Dogface left the reservation, I am not going to argue that... I *personally* regret not seeing it, and I/Ming him...

And on introspection, I have *zero* desire for blood. I have *zero* desire to push anyone, or report anyone.

I enjoy arfcom. I enjoy a good debate. Honestly.

I have said all I want to say on the lopsided way things were dealt with in this thread. I stand by what I wrote.

Just keep your hits above-the-belt folks... Don't leave the reservation... And I have no desire to report anyone... Or have any interaction with site staff. I mind my own business, and should have not let the he-said, he-said BS bother me...

Quoted:
Shirly - shirly you can't be serious? Can I call you shirly?



I thought school was back in session?

Quoted:


I think you're being paranoid.

Quoted:


 Had Joseph Smith lived in any other country in the 19th Century his idea would have never gotten off the ground.  With that said, why defend it?

Quoted:


It's the victim card.  

Why defend something that is indefensible?  

If someone wants to be LDS, then great by all means go be a member as that is our rights protected in this country.  Had Joseph Smith lived in any other country in the 19th Century his idea would have never gotten off the ground.  With that said, why defend it?  When a thread like this starts if any comments are made then just ignore them.  No one then becomes the victim, no one gets banned.  

Fact:  The LDS church cannot be defended by any historical evidence because it doesn't exist.  The LDS church spends a lot of money buying up historical evidence that disproves the Book of Mormon/LDS religion.   Maybe the LDS Church should ignore the naysayers on a much larger level, is that why some feel the need to defend it?

Quoted:
Please give me your definition of murder.
I'll submit that it is the unlawful taking of life.

Quoted:

Shirly - shirly you can't be serious? Can I call you shirly?

Quoted:

In my view, the intentional killing of a defenseless human being is murder, whether done by Man or God.

According to that rationale, all newborn babies -- and even those still in the womb -- are so evil they deserve to be mercilessly slaughtered by God. If you truly believe it's perfectly okay for God to kill babies, then I guess we have considerably different ideas of right and wrong.

Quoted:
I don't know.



The reaction Dogface got when he made the mistake of doing what *they* do and hitting the *report* button was epic...



He was told that he should be ashamed. He was told he was trying to arock someone.



Its different for us...



They circle the wagons. We get hung out to dry.

Quoted:


It's the victim card.  

Why defend something that is indefensible?  

If someone wants to be LDS, then great by all means go be a member as that is our rights protected in this country.  Had Joseph Smith lived in any other country in the 19th Century his idea would have never gotten off the ground.  With that said, why defend it?  When a thread like this starts if any comments are made then just ignore them.  No one then becomes the victim, no one gets banned.  

Fact:  The LDS church cannot be defended by any historical evidence because it doesn't exist.  The LDS church spends a lot of money buying up historical evidence that disproves the Book of Mormon/LDS religion.   Maybe the LDS Church should ignore the naysayers on a much larger level, is that why some feel the need to defend it?

Quoted:
Fact is, no church can be defended by historical evidence, given the proper time span.

Quoted:


How ironic.  We believe that is the reason God set up this country.

Quoted:

Claiming what mainstream Christians believe to be tainted by a pagan carries it's own implications and is equally offensive as using the term cult to me, but you don't hear me whining about that because I know what I know.

Quoted:

exactly! these guys can't see that they did the same shit and also weren't banned. there was no double standard. the mods didn't see ridiculing theology and historical religious figures as a coc violation. and you know they looked because dogface was hitting the report button on anyone who disagreed with him.

he boot the boot for the meltdown / attacks on other members.

Quoted:

It's the victim card.  

Quoted:


You realize the hypocrisy in your argument right?

There is also actually very little historical evidence for the Bible.   There have been many cases where science and other evidences contradict Bible accounts.  If you tried to defend the Bible in a courtroom and try and prove it as true,  you would fail miserably.  


There is actually very little to no physical evidence Jesus even existed.   Just second hand accounts of those that professed a belief in him.  

To believe either takes faith.


Essentially you are saying:

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll109/osudds53/1547243_zpsixftf4li.jpg

Quoted:
]Well, I can't say I read all the posts he made, but from the snippets I read, I could see he was pushing the line.
 

Quoted:
Yep, there is no historical evidence for the supernatural claims of the bible either. The only source for that information is the bible itself.

 

Quoted:
You need to remember you are not reading a primary source.  The history of the church like the journal of discourses is not an official LDS publication.   The speech you are quoting from was recreated after his death.   But I'm sure you will still push it as a primary source.



At the start of the page you are quoting it tells where it came from:

"The following synopsis was reported by Mr. Thos. Bullock, clerk of the steamer, Maid of Iowa."



So it is simply a synopsis that was recreated.  Hearsay.  



Did Joseph supervise this entry? No. The last years of his entries in the History of the Church were actually made by others after his death. It was common at the time for other authors to write as if someone else was speaking. So, these are not Joseph's words--they are the words which others (who admired him enormously after his murder) put in his mouth.



This point is vitally important to keep in mind when trying to assess the character of Joseph Smith, his moral and spiritual quality, through the so-called "Documentary History." Even when it seems to have Joseph Smith speaking in the first person, the History of the Church may or may not actually be representing Joseph Smith's actual voice. (Dean Jessee's "Preface" to his collection of The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith specifically addresses the issue of the seeming egotism that entered into Joseph's later statements which was quite foreign to the man himself--this came not because Joseph suddenly became egotistical, but because the voice we hear is no longer Joseph's: it is the work of scribes following his death. They felt comfortable "praising" Joseph in ways which he would probably not have used.)



The impression which one gets of Joseph Smith from reading his authenticated personal statements is that of a humble and sincere man, struggling to do the will of God as he understood it.



We can see this from a primary source of his, a handwritten letter to his wife:



"I will try to be contented with my lot, knowing that God is my friend. In him I shall find comfort. I have given my life into his hands. I am prepared to go at his call. I desire to be with Christ. I count not my life dear to me [except] to do his will."





But if you are still bent on claiming history of the church as "Joseph's actual words", here is another statement of his from earlier, when he was downplaying that being a prophet, somehow made him better.



"I do not think there have been many good men on the earth since the days of Adam; but there was one good man and his name was Jesus. Many persons think a prophet must be a great deal better than anybody else....I do not want you to think that I am very righteous, for I am not."
Even non-LDS scholors recognized his humble nature.



"By any measurement, Joseph Smith was a remarkable person. His combination of organizational acumen with spiritual originality and personal decorum and modesty is rare in the history of religion. He was so steadfast in his ability to inspire men and women through times of great hardship that none of those who knew him could claim to fully understand him. He knew more about theology and philosophy than it was reasonable for anyone in his position to know, as if he were dipping into the deep, collective unconsciousness of Christianity with a very long pen. For someone so charismatic, he was exceptionally humble, even ordinary, and he delegated authority with the wisdom of a man looking far into the future for the well-being of his followers. "





Stephen H. Webb, Jesus Christ, Eternal God: Heavenly Flesh and the Metaphysics of Matter (Oxford University Press, 2012)