Now chatting with Benson & Tyrel

B
Hi there! How are you?
5:40 PM

C
Hi I am investigating the Mormon church, I've come across some things the Missionaries didn't tell me that are very disturbing and make me not want to get investigate it any further. Can you give me your honest opinion about them?

B
We can try, but to be honest Charlie there is a lot out there that misconstrues, takes out of context, or misrepresents our beliefs. So I would say to rely on the answers you receive from God
5:43 PM

C
Here is my one question, to see if you are willing to be honest,

"Where is the law that allowed Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to 'marry' their follower's wives?"
..like Henry Jacobs, who married Zina Huntington, the love of his life. Then when Zina was 7mo Pregenant with Henry's son, Joseph 'married' her, after sending Henry off on a mission.
8 of them. When he got back, Brigham Young added Zina to his stable of 54 wives.
He just stole poor Henry's whole family from him and destroyed his life."
5:45 PM
Was that right or wrong behavior for BY and JS?

B
Well, first before I answer that, where did you read that Charlie?
5:45 PM

C
LDS.org "Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo."
5:46 PM

B
I do know the article. Did you read it all?
5:47 PM

C
Yes.
It never answers the obvious question this new 'revelation' raises,
the one I asked,
"Was it wrong for Joseph Smith and Brigham Young to 'marry' their follower's wives?
Yes or No is all I need.
5:47 PM

B
The law?
5:47 PM

C
Yes or No?

This is pretty simple.
There's obviously the 10 Commandments, which condemns stealing other men's wives and making babies with them, right?
5:48 PM
That's adultery according to the law, right?
Is there another law that supersedes the 10 Commandments, that permitted JS and BY to 'marry' their follower's wives?
If so, where is that written?

B
Well, the people they married from others' wives were just sealed to them because as it said in the article the commandment was misunderstood and they thought to enter the celestial kingdom they needed to be sealed to the apostle. We understand that was not right and was corrected later on. So as I said read the whole article and ask God for direction, Have a good day Charlie
5:49 PM

C

5:50 PM

A simple "Yes" or "no" answer to my question was all I needed and you couldn't give me that?

The chat session has ended.

Last time I asked "god" for direction, I got no answer...and wound up driving off the end of a pier.

Now I ask google. :)

We didn't used to be this stupid...

The reason Google had to add a "Walking" symbol to Maps is because some MORmON wanted to know how to walk to Park City from SLC and Google showed her the only way to get there, up a highway. So the dumb ass walked up the highway and got hit by a car. Naturally she sued Google and won, so they had to add the walking symbol in there for dumb asses.

True story.

http://searchengineland.com/woman-follows-google-maps-walking-directions-gets-hit-sues-43212

My opinion, evolution used to weed out the stupid people. Now that every dumb ass has a smart phone, maybe it's just helping the stupid people to live longer than Mother Nature intended, in all of her wisdom.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2016 10:04PM by koriwhore.

What is crazy about that evasive answer the missionary gave me is that the article cleverly and gently breaks the news to Mormons that they've been lying by ommission for 170 years about the guy who's praises they've been singing actually committed adultery with his follower's wives, and their lame excuse for not knowing why is....

"The women who united with Joseph Smith in plural marriage risked reputation and self-respect in being associated with a principle so foreign to their culture and so easily misunderstood by others. “I made a greater sacrifice than to give my life,” said Zina Huntington Jacobs, “for I never anticipated again to be looked upon as an honorable woman.” Nevertheless, she wrote, “I searched the scripture & by humble prayer to my Heavenly Father I obtained a testimony for myself.”36 After Joseph’s death, most of the women sealed to him moved to Utah with the Saints, remained faithful Church members, and defended both plural marriage and Joseph.37

37. The historical record is striking for the lack of criticism found among those who had once been Joseph Smith’s plural wives, although most of the wives left no written record."

That's like saying, "The rape victims never reported it, so let's just "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil', K? Bye"

There's no written record Zina EVER divorced Henry before Brigham started making babies with Henry's wife, while Henry was off dutifully serving his 8th mission, every one of which Joseph and Brigham were using as an opportunity to shag poor Henry's wife.

There's no excuse for that whatsoever.

That Mormons can't just say "Yes" it was wrong,
makes me want to just keep asking that question and posting their dishonest evasion, over and over and over until I get an honest answer, out of a MORmON,
for once.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/25/2016 09:38PM by koriwhore.

So now missionaries can talk at the same time on chats!???When did this happen??

Yes Missionaries can chat at the same time on chats.
I'm pretty sure thats always been the case with chats.

you should have asked them how magnets work

It's not like they have to explain electromagnetism.

I wonder how they would have answered if you'd said you got the info from an anti-Mormon site instead of LDS.org.

I wonder what they would have said if i told them I read it in "In Sacred Loneliness, the Plural Wives of Joseph Smith" written by a Mormon Scholar who concluded Joseph consumated his illicit relationships with his followers wives.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> you should have asked them how magnets work


In a graduate-level electromagnetism class I once asked the
professor how a magnet picks up a nail. He went home and
thought about it and said, in the next class period, that he
could not explain it without invoking quantum theory.

The professor was right.
Which is why it's so fun to ask mormons how magnets work...unlike your professor, the majority of them won't go home and think about it, and they won't know quantum theory.
Invoking Elohim usually follows :)

The case Kori referred to, Rosenberg v. Harwood & Google, was based on a January, 2009 incident in Park City. Ms. Rosenberg, a 20-something from Northridge, CA, was hit by Mr. Harwood's car as she was crossing at an intersection, apparently at 6 a.m., which in January is still dark. I gather that Harwood's insurance, assuming he had insurance, wasn't offering enough to get the case settled, so in May of 2010, Rosenberg's attorney filed suit, naming Google on a theory that they failed to warn her that their purported walking route involved a highway with no sidewalks. In short, they failed in a duty the attorney felt was owed to her.

I don't know (meaning I stopped looking for) what happened between Rosenberg and Harwood, but contrary to Kori's assertion, Google's pleadings to be discharged from the law suit was granted by the trial court. The judge's theory being that to extend liability to Google in such instances, would result in the following:

"If Google, as a publisher which widely disseminates information, could be held liable for providing faulty information, this could lead to unlimited liability for Google. Rosenberg argued that the burdens to Google could be ameliorated if Google posted 'a statement that included a warning of dangers of which Google knows or should know along a potential route,' but the court notes that this would dramatically increase the burden on Google. Under Rosenberg’s theory, Google would have to investigate and warn about all foreseeable risks, 'which might include negligent drivers, drunk drivers, dangerous wildlife, sidewalks or roads in disrepair, lack of lighting, and other risks that might only exist during certain times of day.' This burden would be difficult, if not impossible for Google to bear. The court also looks to the social utility of the service provided by Google (under the benefit/burden analysis formulated by Learned Hand) and finds that the service provided by Google has a high social value."

("Learned Hand" is Judge Learned Hand, of the New York Court of Appeals, who has been called the most influential judge who never served on the SCOTUS. Weird, huh?)

Now, is it possible that Roseberg's attorney appealed the decision? Yes. But I did find a summary of this case in a 2015 article and no mention was made regarding the court's finding re Google being overturned.

http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/06/injured_pedestr.htm

http://blog.yodalearning.com/2015/01/13/stupid-lawsuits-tech-giants/


It's in my nature (and business) to not take a person's word for it. Sometimes it means I'm disappointed...

Huh, I just read the article I linked to.
I was summarizing. I thought it was Park City, UT.
Regardless, its pretty stupid to walk down a highway and not expect to get hit by a car and aparently she only did it because Google routed her that way, not knowing there was no sidewalk.

I regret using the word's "...Kori's assertion..." because as I was searching, it was easy to see that the wrong conclusion could be reached. It was a simple error. And yes, it was in Park City; the plaintiff was visiting from Northridge, CA.

May I say, tscc church is the most evil, controlling, mind warping organization, couched in pios self righteousness, that has ever existed since Hitler. I have decided my life-long mission is to destroy them...well had a couple of drinks to night. I may be less pissed tomorrow, but I have to do something!

They stole my virginity at scout camp. Many times. Then I get married and she leaves me saying what they did was somehow your fault.

Sorry. One too many beers. But, weren't those scout masters called of god after fasting and prayerful contemplation?

Sure they were...we all know...

I agree.
Anybody with a functioning conscience would be able to do the math and say what is obvious to any objective human being, that it was wrong for Joseph and Brigham to ruin their follower's wives by destroying their marriages and their lives by stealing their wife and kids from them, leaving them with nothing.
But it's like Mormons all got a lobotomy when it comes to making any kind of objective judgement about Joseph's horrible behavior.

I guess what's most ironic is that Mormons are so quick to judge gaybabies as being unworthy to receive a blessing in a Mormon Church, where Mormons have no problem whatsoever singing the praises of a serial rapist, knowing he 'married' other men's wives and raped their daughters.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2016 11:44PM by koriwhore.

They won't answer questions straight.

Don't believe those Mormon lies. Which ones? The ones that are anti-Mormon. Once evidence comes out, "oh, THAT one is true, but the rest are anti-Mormon lies."

As I learn more about church history, I find that the church acknowledges these "anti-mormon" lies. I'm sorry, the list gets smaller and smaller every year. Eventually, they'll be forced to admit that they used the term as a blanket to shield the members who won't believe the truth regardless. Seems pretty shady to knowingly trick your members by hoping they assume the truths they've heard are lies, leading them to ignore accurate history.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/2016 09:26AM by amongthetombstones.

They flat out refuse to answer "Yes" or "No" to a simple question anybody with a functioning conscience could answer, unequivocably, No, 'Were JS and BY justified in taking their followers wives for themselves?"
Since there is not and never has been any kind of a law that allowed for that kind of practice in all of Western Civilization, not even Islam.
Meaning, Mormonism is more barbaric than Islam.

It is like watching some Congressional hearings sometimes. I want to shake the TV while I'm screaming at whoever is on the hot seat..... ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION YES or NOOOOOOO!!!!

These idiot missionaries, even if they had said "no, the lord ...... Mental vomit....what ever" would at least give you an answer as asked for. I recall in the eMpTyC we were cautioned against asking Yes/No questions. Now they are forbidding answering them.