The problem with LDS apologetics

[Sleeping in EQ]

I think it is fascinating on its own merits, so yes. Also, look how much SloanHater is learning.

Over the last couple of days, the religion forum has found some life.

[ERCougar]

I added the information for illiterates like you and to clarify that the sealing to Helen was a formality. To highlight that there was no change in her living situation.

Of course he could have had secret liaisons. I'm simply contributing evidence which is more than you've ever contributed to a discussion.

A formality???
This may be the dumbest thing you've said. Take a look at her account of things. She hardly viewed it that way and it profoundly affected her, and not so much in a good way.

Of course, I'm talking to the guy who thinks its totally cool for a grown man to marry and have sex with a teenager--as long as she's sixteen!

[TripletDaddy]

I added the information for illiterates like you and to clarify that the sealing to Helen was a formality. To highlight that there was no change in her living situation.

Of course he could have had secret liaisons. I'm simply contributing evidence which is more than you've ever contributed to a discussion.

Stating that she lived with her parents post-sealing isn't "evidence" of formality. It is evidence of living conditions, nothing more. As has been well-established on this board, I did very well in my Evidence class. You apparently have never taken an Evidence class.

[TripletDaddy]

I think it is fascinating on its own merits, so yes. Also, look how much SloanHater is learning.

There is strong evidence to suggest that SloanHater is learning nothing. I am starting to suspect that his participation in this thread is simply a formality (I suspect this based in large part on where he currently lives).

[creekster]

I think it is fascinating on its own merits, so yes. Also, look how much SloanHater is learning.

Is he? Hard to say. Sometimes I am nto sure any of us learn much here. we seem to repeat the same sort of stuff again and again. Myself included (and maybe the worst).

[creekster]

Yeah, other than that...
Move along, nothing to see here!

You think this is what I meant? Scottie asked why HMK had been singled out. I answered. Obviously her age is one reason. As I said.

[UtahDan]

Is he? Hard to say. Sometimes I am nto sure any of us learn much here. we seem to repeat the same sort of stuff again and again. Myself included (and maybe the worst).

There is strong evidence to suggest that SloanHater is learning nothing. I am starting to suspect that his participation in this thread is simply a formality (I suspect this based in large part on where he currently lives).

Tough to argue with the combined brain power arrayed before me on this point. I defer to the two of you.

[Sullyute]

There is strong evidence to suggest that SloanHater is learning nothing. I am starting to suspect that his participation in this thread is simply a formality (I suspect this based in large part on where he currently lives).

I have to admit that was pretty funny.

[SloanHater]

A formality???
This may be the dumbest thing you've said. Take a look at her account of things. She hardly viewed it that way and it profoundly affected her, and not so much in a good way.

Of course, I'm talking to the guy who thinks its totally cool for a grown man to marry and have sex with a teenager--as long as she's sixteen!

Please cite the evidence to the contrary. Please. I'd love to read anything contrary to the statements made by Heber and Helen.

[SloanHater]

Stating that she lived with her parents post-sealing isn't "evidence" of formality. It is evidence of living conditions, nothing more. As has been well-established on this board, I did very well in my Evidence class. You apparently have never taken an Evidence class.

I'm sure Evidence is a bitch at J Reuben.

It's evidence that her 'marriage' to Joseph was marriage in name only. She didn't live with him, she wasn't allowed to socialize with him, there are no accounts of her even being seen with him.

I'm not disputing that there could have been secret encounters, but you've provided nothing, aside from your tired sarcastic act, to counter my claim.

[TripletDaddy]

I'm sure Evidence is a bitch at J Reuben.

Evidence is the same at any law school since the Federal Rules of Evidence are uniform across the country. The FRE are not more difficult at one law school or another.

It's evidence that her 'marriage' to Joseph was marriage in name only. She didn't live with him, she wasn't allowed to socialize with him, there are no accounts of her even being seen with him.

I'm not disputing that there could have been secret encounters, but you've provided nothing, aside from your tired sarcastic act, to counter my claim.

If you aren't disputing that they may have had sexual encounters, then your "evidence" is worthless. It proves nothing, per your own admission.

[ERCougar]

Please cite the evidence to the contrary. Please. I'd love to read anything contrary to the statements made by Heber and Helen.

Well, there's the struggle she went through to accept the idea:

"I fasted for one week, and every day I gained until I had won the victory...I learned that plural marriage is a celestial principle, and saw... the necessity of obedience to those who hold the priesthood, and the danger of rebelling against or speaking lightly of the Lord’s annointed."

Or, what she wrote about it later:

They saw my youthful friends grow shy and cold.
And poisonous darts from sland’rous tongues were hurled,
Untutor’d heart in thy gen’rous sacrafise,
Thou dids’t not weigh the cost nor know the bitter price;
Thy happy dreams all o’er thou’st doom’d also to be
Bar’d out from social scenes by this thy destiny,
And o’er thy sad’nd mem’ries of sweet departed joys
Thy sicken’d heart will brood and imagine future woes,
And like a fetter’d bird with wild and longing heart,
Thou’lt dayly pine for freedom and murmor at thy lot;

Yeah, I'm sure she saw it all as a formality.

[SloanHater]

Evidence is the same at any law school since the Federal Rules of Evidence are uniform across the country. The FRE are not more difficult at one law school or another.



If you aren't disputing that they may have had sexual encounters, then your "evidence" is worthless. It proves nothing, per your own admission.

:lol: Spoken like a true blue cougar.

I've provided plenty of circumstantial evidence. Where's yours? Oh wait, you can't do anything but dance around on nuances because you have no evidence OR knowledge on the issue.

Well, keep on

[creekster]

Well, there's the struggle she went through to accept the idea:


Or, what she wrote about it later:




Yeah, I'm sure she saw it all as a formality.

Lets see if we can get a ruling from triplet, our evidence genius, as to whether this constitutes evidence of sex.

[ERCougar]

I'm sure Evidence is a bitch at J Reuben.

It's evidence that her 'marriage' to Joseph was marriage in name only. She didn't live with him, she wasn't allowed to socialize with him, there are no accounts of her even being seen with him.

I'm not disputing that there could have been secret encounters, but you've provided nothing, aside from your tired sarcastic act, to counter my claim.

She wasn't allowed to socialize with anyone nor participate in any of the normal teenage girl-guy things, being now married at 14.

You know, just when I think that Joseph's polygamy is a thing of the past, a thing in another time, something that we can put behind us, I come across asinine justifications like yours, and I realize that there really was some real lasting damage done by it all.