It is currently Sat Nov 18, 2017 8:02 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Here's to Joseph Smith Con-Artist
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:14 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6587
Lemmie wrote:
...you know that is copyrighted material you are illegally quoting.


Monday, Aug. 14th, 11:46am

Quote:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
MG,

What is your deal? Why are you so shifty and dishonest? It's just so pathetic that you can't be honest in your dealings with your fellow man.

- Doc


Your response does not lend itself to a productive/civil conversation and/or discussion. It does lead us down a road that ultimately leads to a cul-de-sac/dead end where we find ourselves going round and round wasting each other's time. Rather than leading us in an unproductive/uncivil direction, you might want to add substantively to the discussion?


Thanks,
MG


I think this cut and paste from the date posted above may have been the first time I used this response...original to me. My words. If I am the originator, you're saying that I can't continue to use my own words?

How can something be copyrighted by someone else on a board such as this when the original words don't even belong to that person? :wink:

That would be just plain crazy/weird. Who would even do something like that...assuming it could be done? Well, we know the who. That's become rather obvious. :lol:

Maybe Shades could weigh in on this?

Regards,
MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Here's to Joseph Smith Con-Artist
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 10:01 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:15 am
Posts: 5342
Location: The Land of Lorn
:lol:

_________________
"I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to [grindael] from here on out. Directly OR INDIRECTLY" ~MG, 10-25-17, 12:36PM The SAME DAY, an hour later... "I decided that I needed to also create a publicly posted thread, as he did..." FIRST indirect comment. So much for his "DMZ".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Here's to Joseph Smith Con-Artist
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:03 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:25 pm
Posts: 5960
mentalgymnast wrote:
Lemmie wrote:
...you know that is copyrighted material you are illegally quoting.


Quote:
How can something be copyrighted...?

Are you seriously asking that question? :rolleyes:
grindael wrote:
Do your own research. Good luck finding what you are looking for.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Here's to Joseph Smith Con-Artist
PostPosted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 11:28 pm 
God

Joined: Wed Feb 17, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 11781
JLHPROF wrote:
Really? You could at least try and be reasonable.
The point to Shulem's repeated accusations is that clearly that Joseph neither targeted nor showed any preference for underage girls.
And once again, there is no evidence that sex was involved either for Helen or Nancy, the only two outliers by age.
Applying a Warren Jeff's label to Joseph's practice is an unreasonable comparison.


I am not aware of any evidence that Joseph's marriages were not to involve sex or any deal he would wait until they were older. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. You seem to be arguing it was ok for Joseph to marry them, but not ok for him to have sex with girls under 16. Was it ok for him to have sex with 16 year old Fanny? Was it ok for him to do this while married to Emma and hiding the relationship from her?

_________________
42


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Here's to Joseph Smith Con-Artist
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:13 am 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:15 am
Posts: 5342
Location: The Land of Lorn
Fanny Alger was born in 1816, so she would have been 19 in 1835 when Smith likely had a relationship with her... She would have been 16 in 1832 and it is very unlikely that Smith was involved with her at that time...

_________________
"I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to [grindael] from here on out. Directly OR INDIRECTLY" ~MG, 10-25-17, 12:36PM The SAME DAY, an hour later... "I decided that I needed to also create a publicly posted thread, as he did..." FIRST indirect comment. So much for his "DMZ".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Here's to Joseph Smith Con-Artist
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:18 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:04 am
Posts: 3467
I know its been pointed out here before, but its worth repeating......

One may have questions about the sexual proclivities and activities of said Joseph Smith with young girls and numerous other men's wive, but what about all the other church leaders and later prophets? They obviously had sex with as many as they married. Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q Cannon, etc.

Why are apologists so seriously interested in defending the putative "honor" of Joseph Smith, but don't even skip a step or bat an eye when all the others were fornicating around hooplahing it up with so many women?

_________________
"Isn't it ironic that a church that depends so much on a fictional book being actual history has done so much to revise, cover up and ignore real history?" - Fence Sitter

"Science believes in accountability here and now. Religion believes in it in the hereafter." - Maksutov


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Here's to Joseph Smith Con-Artist
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:26 am 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:39 pm
Posts: 6587
Lemmie wrote:
...you know that is copyrighted material you are illegally quoting.


Monday, Aug. 14th, 11:46am

Quote:
Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
MG,

What is your deal? Why are you so shifty and dishonest? It's just so pathetic that you can't be honest in your dealings with your fellow man.

- Doc


Your response does not lend itself to a productive/civil conversation and/or discussion. It does lead us down a road that ultimately leads to a cul-de-sac/dead end where we find ourselves going round and round wasting each other's time. Rather than leading us in an unproductive/uncivil direction, you might want to add substantively to the discussion?


Thanks,
MG


MG wrote:
I think this cut and paste from the date posted above may have been the first time I used this response...original to me. My words. If I am the originator, you're saying that I can't continue to use my own words?

How can something be copyrighted by someone else on a board such as this when the original words don't even belong to that person? :wink:

That would be just plain crazy/weird. Who would even do something like that...assuming it could be done? Well, we know the who. That's become rather obvious. :lol:

Maybe Shades could weigh in on this?


Or better yet, Doctor CamNC4Me, what's up with all this? Did you steal my original content/words and actually copyright them? That's just plain wacky. I don't think I've ever seen anyone play this game before.

MG

_________________
Some people make stuff up. Even here on a board like this. Go figure. What is kind of silly, in a way, is that it would take me so long to figure that out. Maybe I didn't want to think it was true. Maybe I give too much the 'benefit of a doubt' to other people. I guess I should know better.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45503


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Here's to Joseph Smith Con-Artist
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:31 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 6:48 pm
Posts: 5185
Philo Sofee wrote:
I know its been pointed out here before, but its worth repeating......

One may have questions about the sexual proclivities and activities of said Joseph Smith with young girls and numerous other men's wive, but what about all the other church leaders and later prophets? They obviously had sex with as many as they married. Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Heber C. Kimball, George Q Cannon, etc.

Why are apologists so seriously interested in defending the putative "honor" of Joseph Smith, but don't even skip a step or bat an eye when all the others were fornicating around hooplahing it up with so many women?


Joseph Smith loved 14 year old girls. They were the sweetest treats in his candy box. Other Mormon leaders liked young babes too and they certainly took full advantage of all the treats in their boxes. Yes, indeed, Joseph Smith had sex with young ladies, to include 14 year old girls. This is the Mormon legacy and must be shouted from the housetops worldwide!

Polygamy and having sex with young girls is what what the Mormon prophets desired above all things.

Dirty. Old. Men.


Image

_________________
A fool said, "Say what you like. The figure which Joseph Smith identifies as the "slave" is not an image of Anubis, nor is it functioning as Anubis in the image that is displayed." (zerinus)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Here's to Joseph Smith Con-Artist
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:46 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:54 pm
Posts: 4361
Shulem wrote:
Image

That's a fairly good pic selection, there, Shulem. The number of chocolates shown is roughly similar to the number of wives that Smith had.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Here's to Joseph Smith Con-Artist
PostPosted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:39 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 1:15 am
Posts: 5342
Location: The Land of Lorn
I was thinking about this,

Quote:
But honestly, except for Brodie and possibly the Tanner's, these folks are known by some...but not many, comparatively speaking. Eber Howe? Very few folks have heard of him.

Forgotten. If he was ever really known by many in the first place.

John C. Bennett? Maybe a few more, but not many. He definitely had a grudge and/or ax to grind against Joseph.


And how did Brodie get known? By people reading her book. And who is IN the book? John C. Bennett and Eber D. Howe. So everyone that reads her book know who they are. So how could they be "forgotten"?

Some people just don't think things through before making stupid comments. Classic example of this right here.

_________________
"I will not in any way, shape, or form have anything to do with or have anything to say to [grindael] from here on out. Directly OR INDIRECTLY" ~MG, 10-25-17, 12:36PM The SAME DAY, an hour later... "I decided that I needed to also create a publicly posted thread, as he did..." FIRST indirect comment. So much for his "DMZ".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 94 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DrW, Exiled, omni, Res Ipsa and 41 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group