It is currently Fri Sep 22, 2017 11:42 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:15 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5081
Location: The Land of Lorn
mentalDICKWAD wrote:

Grow up.


You're the one following me around to each thread. :lol: I gave you the thread, and started it over, and you followed me there to Troll me, so who needs to grow up?

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can." ~Joseph Smith
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.
I've got things/stuff/jobs to do and when I'm done I may/may not choose/decide to respond/reply/post/comment again. Or not. But maybe? ~Jersey Girl


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Another Mental TROLL Thread
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:17 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 6097
grindael wrote:
And for the upteenth time, I didn't CAPITALIZE, (except three words) I BOLDED and increased the FONT size. Dickwad. And you call me a "lying sack"? :lol:


What do see as the qualitative difference in function between capitalizing and enlarging font size? Do you not think that people are going to respond to them both in basically the same way?

Emphasis. Look here.

Not here.

You are one interesting piece, grindael.

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: Another Mental TROLL Thread
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:18 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5081
Location: The Land of Lorn
mentalDICKWAD wrote:
grindael wrote:
And for the upteenth time, I didn't CAPITALIZE, (except three words) I BOLDED and increased the FONT size. Dickwad. And you call me a "lying sack"? :lol:


What do see as the qualitative difference in function between capitalizing and enlarging font size? Do you not think that people are going to respond to them both in basically the same way?

Emphasis. Look here.

Not here.

You are one interesting piece, grindael.

Regards,
MG


Not anyone with a brain in their head. Yet you keep calling it capitalizing. IT IS NOT. <<< That is, DICKWAD.

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can." ~Joseph Smith
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.
I've got things/stuff/jobs to do and when I'm done I may/may not choose/decide to respond/reply/post/comment again. Or not. But maybe? ~Jersey Girl


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:19 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 6097
grindael wrote:
...you followed me there to Troll me, so who needs to grow up?


I followed you there to point out the truth/reality of what's going on. Again, I would encourage others to simply read the thread in question...or what's left of it after grindael deleted posts.

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: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:21 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5081
Location: The Land of Lorn
mentalDICKWAD wrote:
grindael wrote:
...you followed me there to Troll me, so who needs to grow up?


I followed you there to point out the truth/reality of what's going on. Again, I would encourage others to simply read the thread in question...or what's left of it after grindael deleted posts.


So you followed me HERE for what purpose? To do that again after you did it twice? Nah, that's TROLLING.

DICKWAD

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can." ~Joseph Smith
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.
I've got things/stuff/jobs to do and when I'm done I may/may not choose/decide to respond/reply/post/comment again. Or not. But maybe? ~Jersey Girl


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:29 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 6097
grindael wrote:
Due to this thread originally being hijacked by a TROLL, I’ve begun it again here. These are some of the comments that were made that are relevant to Spiritual Wifeism and not in answer to the TROLL:

Xenophon wrote:
Excellent beginning, grindael. Lots to take in on the first pass and I look forward to another read-through later today when I can give it more time.


Mormonicious wrote:
Ah, a written account of the Sexual activities of Horny Holy Joe. Well done.


Lemmie wrote:

By the way, thanks for your work here. I'm thoroughly enjoying reading through and taking it in. It will take me a while, but I'm looking forward to discussing it with you when I digest a little more!


Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Mr. Grindael,

Your original post is a fantastic and well-sourced commentary on Joseph Smith's character vis a vis his philandering. Thank you. However, I wasn't sure if the 'to be continued' was continued in your back and forth with the board narcissist, or was there more?
- Doc


Thanks for the comments, people.

I will continue on to Ohio tomorrow, Doc.


On the other two threads in question you can see my original response to grindael's post. I rained on his parade. I was then, by default, a troll...**ckwad...and other designated potty mouth terms. He doesn't like it when folks don't fawn and kneel in his presence and throw accolades at him for all of his 'hard work'.

Here was my response:

Quote:
“During this time, as is common to most, or all youths, I fell into many vices and follies; but as my accusers are, and have been forward to accuse me of being guilty of gross and outrageous violations of the peace and good order of the community, I take the occasion to remark, that, though, as I have said above, “as is common to most, or all youths, I fell into many vices and follies,” I have not, neither can it be sustained, in truth, been guilty of wronging or injuring any man or society of men; and those imperfections to which I alude, and for which I have often had occasion to lament, were a light, and too often, vain mind, exhibiting a foolish and trifling conversation.

This being all, and the worst, that my accusers can substantiate against my moral character, I wish to add, that it is not with out a deep feeling of regret that I am thus called upon in answer to my own conscience, to fulfill a duty I owe to myself, as well as to the cause of truth, in making this public confession of my former uncircumspect walk, and unchaste conversation: and more particularly, as I often acted in violation of those holy precepts which I knew came from God. But as the “Articles and Covenants” of this church are plain upon this particular point, I do not deem it important to proceed further. I only add, that I do not, nor never have, pretended to be any other than a man “subject to passion,” and liable, without the assisting grace of the Savior, to deviate from that perfect path in which all men are commanded to walk!” (Letter to Oliver Cowdery, published in the Messenger & Advocate, 1834)


Smith himself would write later that,

Quote:
“The court was detained for a time, in order that two young women (daughters to Mr. Stoal) [probably Rhoda and Miriam] with whom I had at times kept company; might be sent for, in order, if possible to elicit something from them which might be made a pretext against me. The young women arrived and were severally examined, touching my character, and conduct in general but particularly as to my behavior towards them both in public and private, when they both bore such testimony in my favor, as left my enemies without a pretext on their account.”


Hi grindael,

I've noticed that you seem to have a habit of emphasizing/capitalizing certain sections of text to the exclusion/ignoring surrounding text. Why do you do that?

This seems to be a pattern.

Also, at least in my mind, to say that because Joseph used the word "men" and so in turn left an 'out'/loophole for himself to take advantage of women...and making that assumed connection (as a matter of fact) is a bit lame, IMO. Often you will hear folks use a gender designation which will then apply to both sexes...not just the one mentioned.

I think you're making a real stretch. And then building upon your preconceived assumption(s)/conclusions.

But that's just me. And I know what you think about anything I have to say. :wink:

Regards,
MG

*My emphasis was on the words colored blue.

I will concede that I was looking at large bolded font as serving the same purpose as CAPITALS. In other words's, emphasis on certain/particular text.

_________________
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: Another Mental TROLL Thread (4)
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:32 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5081
Location: The Land of Lorn
DICKWAD is still at it...

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can." ~Joseph Smith
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.
I've got things/stuff/jobs to do and when I'm done I may/may not choose/decide to respond/reply/post/comment again. Or not. But maybe? ~Jersey Girl


Last edited by grindael on Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:32 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 5591
mentalgymnast wrote:
[blah, blah, blah...]
...my original post simply pointed out [nothing.]
Troll[ ]MG

The Troll tries the false re-write again.
Lemmie reminds mental of what she previously wrote:
So, did you really have a discussion about the impact of your words in blue? Or did you pick at a nonexistent issue and change your rationale three[four] times about capitalization and why you don't-then do-then don't like it, and then, as usual, want a re-write on your boorish behavior?

Troll.



Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:33 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5081
Location: The Land of Lorn
He can't seem to help himself, he just won't leave me alone. That's what TROLLS do. :redface:

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can." ~Joseph Smith
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.
I've got things/stuff/jobs to do and when I'm done I may/may not choose/decide to respond/reply/post/comment again. Or not. But maybe? ~Jersey Girl


Last edited by grindael on Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:35 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 6097
grindael wrote:
Thanks for the comments, people.


You are welcome. Tomorrow this thread will have a new name...I predict.

On to the fourth try?

BTW, I think I've said enough...oh, really??!!

I won't "troll" (your words, not mine) another thread. Although don't be surprised if I have something to contribute just like I did before you went beserk and wet your pants and went running to a new thread.

Masterful.

I think I've said my piece. Carry on. The echo chamber awaits. :smile:

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: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:38 pm 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 6097
Carry on.

Sorry to bring rain into your otherwise sunny day.

You can't always control the weather though, can you?

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: Another Mental TROLL Thread (5)
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:42 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5081
Location: The Land of Lorn
Mental TROLL is at it again. Said he wouldn't TROLL me, but he is a LIAR and will NEVER keep his word. He's a TROLL. So, here we go again.

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can." ~Joseph Smith
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.
I've got things/stuff/jobs to do and when I'm done I may/may not choose/decide to respond/reply/post/comment again. Or not. But maybe? ~Jersey Girl


Last edited by grindael on Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:42 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5081
Location: The Land of Lorn
Enjoy reading Mental's TROLL comment AGAIN...

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can." ~Joseph Smith
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.
I've got things/stuff/jobs to do and when I'm done I may/may not choose/decide to respond/reply/post/comment again. Or not. But maybe? ~Jersey Girl


Last edited by grindael on Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:52 pm 
God

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 1:25 pm
Posts: 5591
mentalgymnast wrote:
Carry on.

Sorry to bring rain into your otherwise sunny day.

You can't always control the weather though, can you?

Regards,
MG

Remember when mental said this, back in his third trolled thread?
Quote:
I won't "troll" (your words, not mine) another thread.

It would be great if he kept his word, but it's not likely.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Another Mental TROLL Thread (4)
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:56 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5081
Location: The Land of Lorn
I'll just keep redoing the thread. It's all just cut and paste, so I don't care. But EVERYONE will see how many times he broke his word and lied, and kept TROLLING. Fine by me. He just does this because he is scared, faithless and doesn't know what else to do. Apologist moves.

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can." ~Joseph Smith
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.
I've got things/stuff/jobs to do and when I'm done I may/may not choose/decide to respond/reply/post/comment again. Or not. But maybe? ~Jersey Girl


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:59 pm 
Dragon
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:15 am
Posts: 5081
Location: The Land of Lorn
mentalCREEP wrote:
grindael wrote:
Thanks for the comments, people.


You are welcome. Tomorrow this thread will have a new name...I predict.

On to the fourth try?

BTW, I think I've said enough...oh, really??!!

I won't "troll" (your words, not mine) another thread. Although don't be surprised if I have something to contribute just like I did before you went beserk and wet your pants and went running to a new thread.

Masterful.

I think I've said my piece. Carry on. The echo chamber awaits. :smile:


Then you went and trolled that one.

CREEP.

_________________
"I have the truth, and am at the defiance of the world to contradict me if they can." ~Joseph Smith
"The Sots combine with pious care a monkey to enshrine." ~ Mormonism Unvailed, 1834.
I've got things/stuff/jobs to do and when I'm done I may/may not choose/decide to respond/reply/post/comment again. Or not. But maybe? ~Jersey Girl


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:46 am 
Charlatan
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 10:04 pm
Posts: 3118
mentalgymnast wrote:

Except that someone might catch him on that. Tanner's used eclipses and left stuff out. grindael likes to use CAPITAL words to bring one's focus to those words rather than the surrounding text.

Regards,
MG


And the LDS church left out decades of history and volumes of work...the Tanner's were making clear points and for the very most part qualifying their assertions before emphasizing the particular point.

Do you have examples of the Tanners changing the context of their point?

_________________
Faith is the only way we're going to make it. None of us are smart enough to do it on our own.
Merle Haggard


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:36 am 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 6097
Markk wrote:

Do you have examples of the Tanners changing the context of their point?


I'm not going to go through and dig into their stuff all over again. I did that years ago. Here's one quick example from FAIR.

Quote:
Although the Tanners abandon all pretense of historical perspective by the other methods I have described, they further distill their distortion through their bizarre editorial style. First is their use of ellipses ( . . .). For example (on page 95) the Tanners write that “Joseph Smith certainly had the ability to make up ‘new names’,” and then quote an account of Joseph Smith’s giving a “boy the name of Mahonri Moriancumer . . .” (that is where their quote ends). By consulting the sources the Tanners cited for this quotation, however, one learns that they purposely deleted the following sentence: “When he had finished the blessing, he laid the child on the bed, and turning to Elder Cahoon he said, the name I have given your son is the name of the Brother of Jared [in the Book of Mormon]; the Lord has just shown (or revealed) it to me.” The part left out by the Tanners would require the reader to decide whether Joseph Smith could act as a divine revelator, but because the Tanners already conclude that he was a fraud, they eliminate his explanation for the unusual name. The use of ellipses is a well established tool of scholarship, but it may also be used for purposes of distortion.


Another:

Quote:
In UTLM.org “First Vision Article”, the Tanners attempt to demonstrate that “Early LDS leaders usually thought of the [First] vision as one of angels, not God”:

Speaking on Dec. 19, 1869, Orson Pratt taught: “By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him;… This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, pp. 65-66)

So what’s in the ellipses? The excised bit is in italics, with significant portions that affect the Tanners’ argument in bold.

By and by an obscure individual, a young man, rose up, and, in the midst of all Christendom, proclaimed the startling news that God had sent an angel to him; that through his faith, prayers, and sincere repentance he had beheld a supernatural vision, that he had seen a pillar of fire descend from Heaven, and saw two glorious personages clothed upon with this pillar of fire, whose countenance shone like the sun at noonday; that he heard one of these personages say, pointing to the other, “This is my beloved Son, hear ye him.” This occurred before this young man was fifteen years of age; and it was a startling announcement to make in the midst of a generation so completely given up to the traditions of their fathers; and when this was proclaimed by this young, unlettered boy to the priests and the religious societies in the State of New York, they laughed him to scorn. “What!” said they, “visions and revelations in our day! God speaking to men in our day!” They looked upon him as deluded; they pointed the finger of scorn at him and warned their congregations against him. “The canon of Scripture is closed up; no more communications are to be expected from Heaven. The ancients saw heavenly visions and personages; they heard the voice of the Lord; they were inspired by the Holy Ghost to receive revelations, but behold no such thing is to be given to man in our day, neither has there been for many generations past.” This was the style of the remarks made by religionists forty years ago.
This young man, some four years afterwards, was visited again by a holy angel.

See original with italics/bold here:

https://bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/03/ ... ld-tanner/



There are other examples that can be found online where the Tanners used ellipses and it affected their argument. I'm not going to go any farther with it here. My point was that grindael uses large font supposedly to emphasize the text he believes needs to be highlighted...to the exclusion of text that may also deserve to be highlighted. Someone pointed out that this might be some form of Jedi Mind Trick. In jest, of course. Some folks are going to look at the highlighted portions and skim over the rest. That's why I highlighted in blue some of the text that I believed ought to be recognized also. That didn't go over so well as you can see. :smile:

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: Another Mental TROLL Thread (4)
PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:40 am 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 6097
grindael wrote:
He just does this because he is scared, faithless and doesn't know what else to do. Apologist moves.


Yep. That's it.

You're a loser, grindael. You resort to calling names over and over and over again.

Yeah, I know I just called you a loser. But the shoe fits.

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: A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism
PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 10:55 am 
God

Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 3:39 pm
Posts: 6097
grindael wrote:
So... My friends (and Lurkers) here at Mormon Discussions, I've been researching the Spiritual Wifeism of Brother Joseph for about five yeas now and here's how I think it all went down. This will be in two parts, I. Out of the Frying Pan, which will cover the New York, Ohio and Missouri Eras, and II. Into the Fire, will cover the Nauvoo Era. Since I am just writing this "off the cuff" (drawing from my voluminous research when it seems pertinent) I will put this down in chunks with a (to be continued) where I leave off until finished. Though this is called A History of Jo's Spiritual Wifeism, he did not begin to use that term until the Nauvoo Era. Prior to the use of this nom de plume (and rebranding such as marriages), [before 1842], what Smith did can reasonably be called adultery. After this, (1842-1843) what Joseph did was called his "Spiritual Wife System", (by him, his close associates and his Spiritual Wives) a term that was pinned on John C. Bennett in 1842 as a diversion. I hope to be able to show you why. ~johnny

PART ONE: OUT OF THE FRYING PAN (New York, Ohio & Missouri)

NEW YORK

Jo it seems, was always infatuated with the ladies. From a young age he admitted to having problems with "unchaste conversation" (1828 Dictionary meaning: lewd conduct) in relation to the opposite sex. We have Jo's own confession to this:

Quote:
“During this time, as is common to most, or all youths, I fell into many vices and follies; but as my accusers are, and have been forward to accuse me of being guilty of gross and outrageous violations of the peace and good order of the community, I take the occasion to remark, that, though, as I have said above, “as is common to most, or all youths, I fell into many vices and follies,” I have not, neither can it be sustained, in truth, been guilty of wronging or injuring any man or society of men; and those imperfections to which I alude, and for which I have often had occasion to lament, were a light, and too often, vain mind, exhibiting a foolish and trifling conversation.

This being all, and the worst, that my accusers can substantiate against my moral character, I wish to add, that it is not with out a deep feeling of regret that I am thus called upon in answer to my own conscience, to fulfill a duty I owe to myself, as well as to the cause of truth, in making this public confession of my former uncircumspect walk, and unchaste conversation: and more particularly, as I often acted in violation of those holy precepts which I knew came from God. But as the “Articles and Covenants” of this church are plain upon this particular point, I do not deem it important to proceed further. I only add, that I do not, nor never have, pretended to be any other than a man “subject to passion,” and liable, without the assisting grace of the Savior, to deviate from that perfect path in which all men are commanded to walk!” (Letter to Oliver Cowdery, published in the Messenger & Advocate, 1834)



Quote:
“The court was detained for a time,in order that two young women (daughters to Mr. Stoal) [probably Rhoda and Miriam] with whom I had at times kept company; might be sent for, in order, if possible to elicit something from them which might be made a pretext against me. The young women arrived and were severally examined, touching my character, and conduct in general but particularly as to my behavior towards them both in public and private, when they both bore such testimony in my favor, as left my enemies without a pretext on their account."


A little help with emphasis...mine...using large font. Any tendency on the part of any readers to skip over the portion that grindael highlighted in his original post (I took his highlights off in this reconstruction) back on the first "troll" thread?

The eyes naturally gravitate/move towards the larger font.

Just sayin''.

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: A Mental TROLL Thread
PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:03 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 7:44 pm
Posts: 1536
Watch this
transcript: ho ho ho ho ho ho ho, AH ha ha ha ha ha ha

Just checking to be sure I've bolded this properly.

_________________
Bring back the lions, the Romans weren't stupid.
In my mind science could make great leaps forward if it can just get over this nonsense about observed things. - Franktalk
I say there is no such thing as a biological creature. - Franktalk
In time the physical bodies we have will be enhanced to obtain energy directly from nature. - Franktalk


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 105 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 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