Converting "Mormons"

[ST:DS9]

g m

I am sorry but just because something is legal it does not make it right. Yes, BY was married to a thirteed year old also. This is pedophilia no matter what the law says.

Well the sources I see, say the youngest was 15. Do a google search "wives of Brigham Young".

We are talking about morals here also. In the Jewish tradition young girls were betrothed between the age of 12 to 12 1/2 and were wed a year later - at 13 to 13 1/2 - leaving a potential birth 3 months shy of 14 or a birth at 14 1/2. This was true in Jesus time. Are we going to impose our moral judgements of the late 20th century on to them to. Isn't there some record stating that Mary, Mother of Jesus, was around 14 when she was betrothed to Joseph.

They (Early 20th century and before) didn't have the same moral judements that we have now, it was not looked upon as wrong, and girls at the age of 15 were considered ready for marriage. I did a search on google and found that the age of consent was 10 until the late 19th century, when it was changed to 12 or 13.

 

[Swart]

This one is good too. An official church site with Joseph's group record.

http://www.familysearch.org/Eng/Search/AF/individual_record.asp?recid=7762167

Very interesting.

I notice this is a "Ancestral File" submission. It would be interesting to find out who submitted it to the AF. I cannot find a correlation in the IGI.

FYI: The "Ancestral File" is a public submitted, public access section. It does not contain official church records. The IGI is the official church record or LDS temple ordinances.

 

[Swart]

You can (and do) believe whatever you want. I don't believe it is wrong, and in fact believe it is necessary and right.

There's an old Latin proverb that says: "Qui Tacet Consentit." It means "He who is silent, consents."

If you're not vocal about your opposition, it is as if you approve. That's why I bash mormonism.

Okay, so as a 'Mormon' you used to bash Catholics.
Now, as a Catholic, you like to bash 'Mormons'.

Anyone else see a problem here?

 

[happyinhisgrace]

I attended the New Zealand MTC. We may have done one recorded session, I don't remember. I did four or five in the mission field. The purpose was to see how we looked from the investigators perspective. If someone tells you you pick your nose too often, it's easy to ignore. When you see yourself doing it on video, the cringe-factor is supreme.

The purpose of the video sessions was not to practice technique or hone skills, but to iron out idiosynchracies. About half the time we were teaching the camera, no-one else was in the room. One time one of the missionaries behind the camera decided to give us a hard time by throwing difficult questions at us, but we found it hard to take seriously. The last minute of the video was of me rolling on the ground laughing.

They don't have any "missionaries behind the camera" at the Provo MTC recording the sessions, the video cameras are on the wall and are turned on from a seperate room. They absolutly DID use them to "hone skills" and "techinque".

I find it interesting that the lds on CF do not believe me on this yet they have never even been in these training sessions to see for themselves. I have even suggested that you lds go see for yourselves. I have nothing to hide. Like I said, this was almost 4 years ago that I was volenteering for the missionary sessions at the MTC. Even if they have changed them slightly, I am sure they have at least one person who is still working there that would confirm what I have said. Many of the "workers" were elderly couples who were serving out missions there but I am willing to bet that they have a least a few people that have been there for a really long time.

If I remember correctly, there is a poster here on CF that is going on his mission soon. Maybe I will get lucky and he will go to the Provo MTC, find a way to sneak off to a computer and post about what I have said on this subject. Then again, that would violate his mission rules so who knows.

Oh well, suit yourselves, you will believe as you want to.

 

[Ran77]

Okay, so as a 'Mormon' you used to bash Catholics.
Now, as a Catholic, you like to bash 'Mormons'.

Anyone else see a problem here?

Yep. Echoes one of my previous comments to him. His reply is that it is fun to bash. (Not a direct quote but that was the timbre of the reply.) I give him credit for being honest about it.

 

[Doc T]

Doc it would appear that you cut & pasted then altered a quote from christopher123. That strikes me as a tad dishonest.

If you will read Christopher123's post #104 at the very bottom you will see that he edited the post because it was not clear. What you see as his quote in post #105 was what Christopher123 had originally said. No dishonestly here.

Doc

~

 

[Jason of Wyoming]

Okay, so as a 'Mormon' you used to bash Catholics.
Now, as a Catholic, you like to bash 'Mormons'.

Anyone else see a problem here?

I consider "bashing" akin to "debating". Since this is a "debate" forum, I fail to see a problem.

 

[ST:DS9]

I consider "bashing" akin to "debating". Since this is a "debate" forum, I fail to see a problem.

I agree with you Jason.

 

[skylark1]

I agree with you Jason.

I don't. Debating can become "bashing," but it doesn't have to be.

debate: A discussion involving opposing points.

bash: To engage in harsh, accusatory, threatening criticism.

 

[ST:DS9]

I don't. Debating can become "bashing," but it doesn't have to be.

debate: A discussion involving opposing points.

bash: To engage in harsh, accusatory, threatening criticism.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. I was more agreeing to his definition of Bashing = Debate, knowing that it wasn't the literal definition of bashing. Maybe I was reading more into what he was saying that I should have.

 

[Jason of Wyoming]

I define "bash" somewhere in between the two options given by Skylark. I don't think bashing is ad hominem attacking, but it is agressive and confrontational.

 

[Swart]

I consider "bashing" akin to "debating". Since this is a "debate" forum, I fail to see a problem.

Bashing is to debating as gluttony is to eating.

 

[Swart]

I define "bash" somewhere in between the two options given by Skylark. I don't think bashing is ad hominem attacking, but it is agressive and confrontational.

There is no necessity for "bashing" to include dubious or fallacious tactics; however, it frequently is the case. There is a thin line, IMO. Debate generally follows a system of rules; some formal, some not so formal. In a 'bash', these 'gentlemanly' forms are ignored. A bit like comparing the 'Marquis of Queensbury rules" to a street fight; except that in a street fight, there are still some lines that should not be crossed.