Are we enemies?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
rcrocket

Post by rcrocket »

liz3564 wrote:
Such rank cowardice one exhibits to make anonymous posts on any topic of real significance involving real and known people. Do you think people discount your cowardice merely because this is the internet? Why can’t you reveal your real names and ward affiliations? What is wrong with fearing expulsion from the Lord’s true church?



Why do you post with an anonymous name? Just curious.


I have stated my true name many times on this board and its predecessor.

http://www.lw.com/attorney/attorneysear ... ttno=00975

I use my real name on FAIR (although I am a light poster). I don't use my real name in every post here because of the occasional threat I have received to report my positions to my stake president or my employer (I am self-employed). I find several folks on this board to be extremely unsavory characters. But it is fun nonetheless to be right all the time.

P

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

And, indeed, Harmony is the lightest of lightweights, and I speak of her posts and not of her as a person.


And yet you still persist in sitting in judgment, as if your opinion really counts. When will you realize that your stewardship does not include me, never has, never will... and that much as you would like to, you have no say in my eternal salvation? If I was to come to your ward, you could not forbid me to take the sacrament. If I was to sit across the aisle from you in the temple, you could not protest. And why not? Because you have no standing, no authority, no stewardship. And it galls you no end.

Do you think she really understands the nuances of the evidences involving Fanny Alger?


Much moreso than you do, it appears. Joseph used God's name to cover up his dirty little affair. That's rehensible. Joseph lied in God's name repeatedly. That's also rehensible. Were any man who claimed to be a prophet to behave similiarly, to sign God's name to a revelation he didn't approve, history would treat him the same way.

When Sec 132 is gone from the canon, the subject will be moot. Until then, it's current events and open for discussion.

Yoda

Post by Yoda »

I don't use my real name in every post here because of the occasional threat I have received to report my positions to my stake president or my employer (I am self-employed).


So...let me get this straight. You are justified in using a pseudonym for professional/personal reasons, but the rest of us aren't? Give me a break!

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

But it is fun nonetheless to be right all the time.


You're serious. That's the hilarious part. You're really serious. And you actually believe this. That is downright scary.

rcrocket

Post by rcrocket »

harmony wrote:
And yet you still persist in sitting in judgment, as if your opinion really counts. When will you realize that your stewardship does not include me, never has, never will... and that much as you would like to, you have no say in my eternal salvation? If I was to come to your ward, you could not forbid me to take the sacrament. If I was to sit across the aisle from you in the temple, you could not protest. And why not? Because you have no standing, no authority, no stewardship. And it galls you no end.


I really don't have a clue what you're talking about, although you have certainly made this irrelevant point before.

Your posts are what they are. I judge your posts. As you judge mine. There is nothing else to judge. I have no stewardship over you.

The fact that you post gives me the right to comment.

Much moreso than you do, it appears. Joseph used God's name to cover up his dirty little affair. That's rehensible. Joseph lied in God's name repeatedly. That's also rehensible. Were any man who claimed to be a prophet to behave similiarly, to sign God's name to a revelation he didn't approve, history would treat him the same way.


Now, look folks, here we are talking about Fanny Alger. Yet, do we read any substance whatsoever? We have none! How can one respond to such empty-headed vagaries?

P

rcrocket

Post by rcrocket »

harmony wrote:
But it is fun nonetheless to be right all the time.


You're serious. That's the hilarious part. You're really serious. And you actually believe this. That is downright scary.


Oh, please. I am rarely right. That is the beauty of saying that I am right all the time.

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

Much moreso than you do, it appears. Joseph used God's name to cover up his dirty little affair. That's rehensible. Joseph lied in God's name repeatedly. That's also rehensible. Were any man who claimed to be a prophet to behave similiarly, to sign God's name to a revelation he didn't approve, history would treat him the same way.


Now, look folks, here we are talking about Fanny Alger. Yet, do we read any substance whatsoever? We have none! How can one respond to such empty-headed vagaries?

P


So start a thread about Fanny, if you're proposing that it was not the dirty little affair that Oliver called it. This thread is not about Fanny, and she definitely deserves her own thread.

Pahoran
God
Posts: 1296
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:20 pm

Post by Pahoran »

harmony wrote:
Do you think she really understands the nuances of the evidences involving Fanny Alger?

Much moreso than you do, it appears.

No. It does not.

Joseph used God's name to cover up his dirty little affair.

And your evidence for this is what, exactly?

That's rehensible.

Your accusation is indeed reprehensible (note the spelling.)

Joseph lied in God's name repeatedly.

No. He did not.

That's also rehensible.

Your accusation is indeed reprehensible (note the spelling.)

Were any man who claimed to be a prophet to behave similiarly, to sign God's name to a revelation he didn't approve, history would treat him the same way.

You have no evidence that God didn't approve it.

When Sec 132 is gone from the canon, the subject will be moot. Until then, it's current events and open for discussion.

I'm entirely happy with Section 132 as it stands.

Regards,
Pahoran

rcrocket

Post by rcrocket »

Pahoran wrote:
That's rehensible.

Your accusation is indeed reprehensible (note the spelling.)


Now, now, Pahoran. Let them beat up Wade Englund over his spelling errors. You really can't expect people who don't read anything but the internet to be good spellers, now do you?

P

Pahoran
God
Posts: 1296
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:20 pm

Post by Pahoran »

Plutarch wrote:
Pahoran wrote:
That's rehensible.

Your accusation is indeed reprehensible (note the spelling.)

Now, now, Pahoran. Let them beat up Wade Englund over his spelling errors. You really can't expect people who don't read anything but the internet to be good spellers, now do you?

P

I guess you're right. Wade's misspellings can be parlayed into irrefutable evidence of his total idiocy and depravity, but no critic's misspellings are to be corrected, ever.

Got that.

Regards,
Pahoran

User avatar
asbestosman
God
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:32 pm

Post by asbestosman »

Pahoran wrote:
Plutarch wrote:Now, now, Pahoran. Let them beat up Wade Englund over his spelling errors. You really can't expect people who don't read anything but the internet to be good spellers, now do you?

P

I guess you're right. Wade's misspellings can be parlayed into irrefutable evidence of his total idiocy and depravity, but no critic's misspellings are to be corrected, ever.

Got that.

Regards,
Pahoran

Critics don't' misspell words. They just spell in a different dialect. Kind of like the difference between Brittish and American spelling or Jacobean and modern spelling. Such a thing could never apply to the faithful. ;)
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

Pahoran wrote:
harmony wrote:
Do you think she really understands the nuances of the evidences involving Fanny Alger?

Much moreso than you do, it appears.

No. It does not.


Yes, it does.

Joseph used God's name to cover up his dirty little affair.

And your evidence for this is what, exactly?


Sex 132.

That's rehensible.

Your accusation is indeed reprehensible (note the spelling.)


Spelling is optional and highly overrated. Based on your reply (such as it is), you obviously knew what I meant, therefore I got my point across.

Joseph lied in God's name repeatedly.

No. He did not.


Yes, he did. And so are you, since you know good and well he did.

That's also rehensible.

Your accusation is indeed reprehensible (note the spelling.)


Again, you obviously know what I was getting at, so my spelling is immaterial.

Were any man who claimed to be a prophet to behave similiarly, to sign God's name to a revelation he didn't approve, history would treat him the same way.

You have no evidence that God didn't approve it.


You have no evidence that he did (or does).

When Sec 132 is gone from the canon, the subject will be moot. Until then, it's current events and open for discussion.

I'm entirely happy with Section 132 as it stands.


That does not surprise me. However, we aren't talking about your happiness. We're discussing Joseph inventing a revelation to cover his adultery, and the resulting his loss of his prophethood.

Yoda

Post by Yoda »

I guess you're right. Wade's misspellings can be parlayed into irrefutable evidence of his total idiocy and depravity, but no critic's misspellings are to be corrected, ever.

Got that.

Regards,
Pahoran


Deleted---This was a snipey comment about Wade. I apologize. It was immature and unwarranted.

To be honest, if an argument is well-thought-out, minor misspellings don't bother me when reading arguments on either side of the aisle. I've found that I rely on spell check A LOT more than I used to. It's like using a calculator instead of using your memorized addition, subtraction, and multiplication facts.

Grammatical errors are my personal pet peeve. I suppose we each have our own. LOL ;)
Last edited by Yoda on Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Post by Runtu »

liz3564 wrote:
I guess you're right. Wade's misspellings can be parlayed into irrefutable evidence of his total idiocy and depravity, but no critic's misspellings are to be corrected, ever.

Got that.

Regards,
Pahoran


Actually, Pahoran, Wade's posts were parlayed into irrefutable evidence of his total idiocy and depravity. His misspellings and misuse of words were simply icing on the cake.

To be honest, if an argument is well-thought-out, minor misspellings don't bother me when reading arguments on either side of the aisle. I've found that I rely on spell check A LOT more than I used to. It's like using a calculator instead of using your memorized addition, subtraction, and multiplication facts.

Grammatical errors are my personal pet peeve. I suppose we each have our own. LOL ;)


Exactly. If an argument is substantive, a typo isn't going to detract from it.

User avatar
asbestosman
God
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:32 pm

Post by asbestosman »

Runtu wrote:Exactly. If an argument is substantive, a typo isn't going to detract from it.


Actually it can. I remember receiving a letter on my mission from a friend. I told her how hard it was and she wrote back that, "our trials that make us sore."

At the time I could hardly agree more. At least it made me feel better. I still get some good chuckles from that one (she was a notoriously bad speller).
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO

Pahoran
God
Posts: 1296
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:20 pm

Post by Pahoran »

harmony wrote:
Pahoran wrote:
harmony wrote:
Do you think she really understands the nuances of the evidences involving Fanny Alger?

Much moreso than you do, it appears.

No. It does not.

Yes, it does.

No, it does not. You have yet to demonstrate that you have the slightest understanding of any past event that took place anywhere, ever.

harmony wrote:
Joseph used God's name to cover up his dirty little affair.

And your evidence for this is what, exactly?

Sex 132.

Was that a typo, or did you do that on purpose? Knowing how particularly low your mind is, I suspect the latter.

Section 132 is one of the Saints' most precious possessions. It lays out the highest and holiest of the revelations, namely, Celestial Marriage. The notion that it is merely some kind of "cover-up" is disgusting, ugly and filthy.

harmony wrote:
Joseph lied in God's name repeatedly.

No. He did not.

Yes, he did. And so are you, since you know good and well he did.

I know no such thing. Just because I am aware of the content of your vicious hate propaganda does not mean that I believe it.

Your ability to engage in civilised discourse continues to be hampered by your inability to grasp the fact that your jaundiced, low-minded opinions are not self-evidently true to everyone else. Not only is it possible for an honest, informed person to disagree with you, it is virtually impossible for an honest, informed person to agree with you.

harmony wrote:
Were any man who claimed to be a prophet to behave similiarly, to sign God's name to a revelation he didn't approve, history would treat him the same way.

You have no evidence that God didn't approve it.

You have no evidence that he did (or does).

Having a rather retentive memory, and having forgotten more about it than you are ever likely to know, I am fully satisfied that he did and does.

harmony wrote:
When Sec 132 is gone from the canon, the subject will be moot. Until then, it's current events and open for discussion.

I'm entirely happy with Section 132 as it stands.

That does not surprise me. However, we aren't talking about your happiness. We're discussing Joseph inventing a revelation to cover his adultery, and the resulting his loss of his prophethood.

Which is an evil fiction that exists only in certain diseased minds. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the faith of the Latter-day Saints.

Regards,
Pahoran

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

Pahoran wrote:
harmony wrote:
Pahoran wrote:
harmony wrote:
Do you think she really understands the nuances of the evidences involving Fanny Alger?

Much moreso than you do, it appears.

No. It does not.

Yes, it does.

No, it does not. You have yet to demonstrate that you have the slightest understanding of any past event that took place anywhere, ever.


Pahoran, we aren't talking about me, remember? My understanding, my behavior, my allegiances are not the subject we're discussing. Shift your focus, man! I am not the subject of this discussion; Joseph is, Joseph's behavior is, the impact of Joseph's behavior is.

We're talking about Joseph's dirty lil affair with Fanny. You have yet to demonstrate why you think it should not be characterized as his dirty lil affair (ala Oliver, his friend and contemporary). I don't have to have anything other than the normal understanding of the event, since Oliver, Joseph's friend and contemporary, is the one who characterized it as a dirty little affair. Argue with Oliver, not me. Show us why we shouldn't take Oliver's characterization as truth. Show us why we should not believe that Joseph lied repeatedly about his involvement in plural marriage, since we can read his statements for ourselves in the contemporary newspaper.

harmony wrote:
Joseph used God's name to cover up his dirty little affair.

And your evidence for this is what, exactly?

Sex 132.

Was that a typo, or did you do that on purpose? Knowing how particularly low your mind is, I suspect the latter.


Knowing how you choose to characterize your opponents, I'm not surprised.

Section 132 is one of the Saints' most precious possessions. It lays out the highest and holiest of the revelations, namely, Celestial Marriage. The notion that it is merely some kind of "cover-up" is disgusting, ugly and filthy.


Well, for that you can blame Joseph. He's the one who has no witnesses for this revelation, no collaboration, no supporting evidence. He wrote it, long after his "dirty little affair" with Fanny was discovered, under suspicious circumstances, when he was getting pressured from Emma and his family. And Emma was so excited about it when she first read it, she burned it.

harmony wrote:
Joseph lied in God's name repeatedly.

No. He did not.

Yes, he did. And so are you, since you know good and well he did.

I know no such thing. Just because I am aware of the content of your vicious hate propaganda does not mean that I believe it.


It's not my vicious hate propoganda, Pahoran. It's Joseph's words, and the words of Joseph's contemporaries. You are the one ratcheting up the rhetoric, not me.

Your ability to engage in civilised discourse continues to be hampered by your inability to grasp the fact that your jaundiced, low-minded opinions are not self-evidently true to everyone else. Not only is it possible for an honest, informed person to disagree with you, it is virtually impossible for an honest, informed person to agree with you.


Self-evident? Pahoran, you wouldn't know self-evident if it bit you on the nose. You deliberately ignore any and all evidence that does not support your world view. Don't talk to me about self-evident, when you have no grasp of the evidence at all.

harmony wrote:
Were any man who claimed to be a prophet to behave similiarly, to sign God's name to a revelation he didn't approve, history would treat him the same way.

You have no evidence that God didn't approve it.

You have no evidence that he did (or does).

Having a rather retentive memory, and having forgotten more about it than you are ever likely to know, I am fully satisfied that he did and does.


And I, on the other hand, have had confirmation from the initial source that indeed, he does not.

harmony wrote:
When Sec 132 is gone from the canon, the subject will be moot. Until then, it's current events and open for discussion.

I'm entirely happy with Section 132 as it stands.

That does not surprise me. However, we aren't talking about your happiness. We're discussing Joseph inventing a revelation to cover his adultery, and the resulting his loss of his prophethood.

Which is an evil fiction that exists only in certain diseased minds. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the faith of the Latter-day Saints.


Oh, now anyone who disagrees with you has a diseased mind? You choose to move the discussion to the literal, and away from the figuretive? You are not the spokesperson for the Latter-day Saints, Pahoran. Speak only for yourself. You don't know squat about the faith of the LDS. For the most part, the faith of the LDS doesn't exist, since we know the retention rates and number of full-tithe payers is miniscule in comparison to the official count on the books. So don't go talking like you know what you don't know, because not only do you not know, but no one else does either. I repeat: the books aren't open. So you don't know anything about the Latter-day Saints. No one does.

Pahoran
God
Posts: 1296
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 8:20 pm

Post by Pahoran »

harmony wrote:
Pahoran wrote:
harmony wrote:
Pahoran wrote:
harmony wrote:
Do you think she really understands the nuances of the evidences involving Fanny Alger?

Much moreso than you do, it appears.

No. It does not.

Yes, it does.

No, it does not. You have yet to demonstrate that you have the slightest understanding of any past event that took place anywhere, ever.

Pahoran, we aren't talking about me, remember? My understanding, my behavior, my allegiances are not the subject we're discussing. Shift your focus, man! I am not the subject of this discussion; Joseph is, Joseph's behavior is, the impact of Joseph's behavior is.

Yet you keep making your miniscule and flawed knowledge the issue here. Plutarch has published on LDS history. You have not. His credentials are real. Yours are imaginary. Therefore, when he says that he understands the details and the nuances of the Fanny Alger case, he has credibility. When you deny that such understanding is even necessary, as you do below, that is at least an admission that you don't understand them. And even quite apart from your consistent pattern of dishonesty, that sinks your credibility right out of sight.

harmony wrote:We're talking about Joseph's dirty lil affair with Fanny. You have yet to demonstrate why you think it should not be characterized as his dirty lil affair (ala Oliver, his friend and contemporary). I don't have to have anything other than the normal understanding of the event, since Oliver, Joseph's friend and contemporary, is the one who characterized it as a dirty little affair. Argue with Oliver, not me.

I don't need to. Oliver subsequently recanted his claims in that regard.

He also rejoined the Church. Knowing vastly more about the matter than you do or ever will.

How committed are you to following his example?

harmony wrote:Show us why we shouldn't take Oliver's characterization as truth.

See above.

harmony wrote:Show us why we should not believe that Joseph lied repeatedly about his involvement in plural marriage, since we can read his statements for ourselves in the contemporary newspaper.

You are baiting and switching here, as you habitually do. Where, in any "contemporary newspaper," does Joseph make such a denial "in the name of the Lord?"

harmony wrote:
harmony wrote:
Joseph used God's name to cover up his dirty little affair.

And your evidence for this is what, exactly?

Sex 132.

Was that a typo, or did you do that on purpose? Knowing how particularly low your mind is, I suspect the latter.

Knowing how you choose to characterize your opponents, I'm not surprised.

Do you deny that you did it on purpose? Yes or no?

harmony wrote:
Section 132 is one of the Saints' most precious possessions. It lays out the highest and holiest of the revelations, namely, Celestial Marriage. The notion that it is merely some kind of "cover-up" is disgusting, ugly and filthy.

Well, for that you can blame Joseph.

I prefer to put the blame where it rightly belongs, thanks: with the liars who falsely accuse him without any evidence in support.

harmony wrote:He's the one who has no witnesses for this revelation, no collaboration, no supporting evidence.

A great many events have taken place without witnesses, collaboration or supporting evidence. Does that mean they didn't happen?

You have no evidence against the authenticity of the revelation; not a shred.

harmony wrote:He wrote it, long after his "dirty little affair" with Fanny was discovered,

And much too late for it to be used to "cover up" that plural marriage.

harmony wrote:under suspicious circumstances, when he was getting pressured from Emma and his family. And Emma was so excited about it when she first read it, she burned it.

Thus proving that you're not the only one to allows your own personal prejudices to cause you to reject the revealed Word of God.

harmony wrote:
harmony wrote:
Joseph lied in God's name repeatedly.

No. He did not.

Yes, he did. And so are you, since you know good and well he did.

I know no such thing. Just because I am aware of the content of your vicious hate propaganda does not mean that I believe it.

It's not my vicious hate propoganda, Pahoran. It's Joseph's words, and the words of Joseph's contemporaries. You are the one ratcheting up the rhetoric, not me.

Really? Did Joseph tell everyone that he "lied in God's name repeatedly?" Those are your words, "Harmony," and your refusal to accept responsibility for them is as cowardly as it is dishonest.

harmony wrote:
Your ability to engage in civilised discourse continues to be hampered by your inability to grasp the fact that your jaundiced, low-minded opinions are not self-evidently true to everyone else. Not only is it possible for an honest, informed person to disagree with you, it is virtually impossible for an honest, informed person to agree with you.

Self-evident? Pahoran, you wouldn't know self-evident if it bit you on the nose. You deliberately ignore any and all evidence that does not support your world view. Don't talk to me about self-evident, when you have no grasp of the evidence at all.

You are raving. Do you have anything to say at all? Where is all this evidence which you understand so well, but which you claim I cannot grasp?

harmony wrote:
harmony wrote:
Were any man who claimed to be a prophet to behave similiarly, to sign God's name to a revelation he didn't approve, history would treat him the same way.

You have no evidence that God didn't approve it.

You have no evidence that he did (or does).

Having a rather retentive memory, and having forgotten more about it than you are ever likely to know, I am fully satisfied that he did and does.

And I, on the other hand, have had confirmation from the initial source that indeed, he does not.

As you know, or ought to had you ever actually been an informed Latter-day Saint, nobody's alleged spiritual confirmation--whether real, imaginary or fabricated--can ever be evidence for anyone else. That you attempt to use yours as such is sound evidence against its authenticity.

harmony wrote:
harmony wrote:
When Sec 132 is gone from the canon, the subject will be moot. Until then, it's current events and open for discussion.

I'm entirely happy with Section 132 as it stands.

That does not surprise me. However, we aren't talking about your happiness. We're discussing Joseph inventing a revelation to cover his adultery, and the resulting his loss of his prophethood.

Which is an evil fiction that exists only in certain diseased minds. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the faith of the Latter-day Saints.

Oh, now anyone who disagrees with you has a diseased mind?

Only when they indulge in filthy fantasies.

harmony wrote:You choose to move the discussion to the literal, and away from the figuretive?

What sort of dodge is this? Are you now claiming that Joseph only figuratively lied, that he only figuratively committed adultery, that he only figuratively invented a revelation, that he only figuratively lost his prophetic calling?

Oh, and just by the way: since the Lord went to all the trouble of restoring the Gospel, upon whom did Joseph's prophetic mantle devolve when he lost it?

You?

harmony wrote:You are not the spokesperson for the Latter-day Saints, Pahoran.

Tough luck. I am the only one in sight for the purposes of this discussion.

harmony wrote:Speak only for yourself. You don't know squat about the faith of the LDS.

I know more than you can possibly imagine.

harmony wrote:For the most part, the faith of the LDS doesn't exist, since we know the retention rates and number of full-tithe payers is miniscule in comparison to the official count on the books.

What meaningless blather. I agree that the set of believing Latter-day Saints is not coextensive with the set of members of record; but that does not mean that "the faith of the LDS doesn't exist." That's one of your more idiotic lies, which is saying something.

harmony wrote:So don't go talking like you know what you don't know, because not only do you not know, but no one else does either. I repeat: the books aren't open. So you don't know anything about the Latter-day Saints. No one does.

I agree that you know nothing at all. It is an astoundingly stupid mistake to project your own vast ignorance--of which you are justifiably proud--upon everyone else.

Regards,
Pahoran

Ray A

Post by Ray A »

Pahoran wrote:
harmony wrote:We're talking about Joseph's dirty lil affair with Fanny. You have yet to demonstrate why you think it should not be characterized as his dirty lil affair (ala Oliver, his friend and contemporary). I don't have to have anything other than the normal understanding of the event, since Oliver, Joseph's friend and contemporary, is the one who characterized it as a dirty little affair. Argue with Oliver, not me.

I don't need to. Oliver subsequently recanted his claims in that regard.


Do you have a source for that, Pahoran?

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Post by Runtu »

Ray A wrote:
Pahoran wrote:
harmony wrote:We're talking about Joseph's dirty lil affair with Fanny. You have yet to demonstrate why you think it should not be characterized as his dirty lil affair (ala Oliver, his friend and contemporary). I don't have to have anything other than the normal understanding of the event, since Oliver, Joseph's friend and contemporary, is the one who characterized it as a dirty little affair. Argue with Oliver, not me.

I don't need to. Oliver subsequently recanted his claims in that regard.


Do you have a source for that, Pahoran?


I'm guessing that this excerpt from the Far West Record:

April 12 1838

[High council presided over by Joseph Smith. Council called to consider the case of Oliver Cowdery who had written a long letter of protest to Edward Partridge regarding the Church's involvement in civic matters and particularly the matter of Cowdery's property in Far West. The council heard charges against Cowdery and deliberated on his standing. Cowdery was excommunicated. For the account see FWR. Joseph Smith's remarks occupy only a small part of the record, but indicate his attitude regarding Cowdery and their history in the restoration. The remarks made by Joseph are in regard to the insinuation made by Cowdery to several brethren that Joseph was guilty of adultery. To set the context, we include testimony which drew forth Joseph's remarks.]

. . . George W. Harris testifies that one evening last fall [see November 7, 1837 FWR.] O. Cowdery was at his house together with Joseph Smith jr, and Thomas B. Marsh, when a conversation took place between Joseph Smith jr & O. Cowdery, when he seemed to insinuate that Joseph Smith jr was guilty of adultery, but when the question was put, if he (Joseph) had ever acknowledged to him that he was guilty of such a thing; when he [Oliver] answered No. . .

. . . David W. Patten testifies, that he went to Oliver Cowdery to enquire of him if a certain story was true respecting J. Smith's committing adultery with a certain girl 1, when he turned on his heel and insinuated as though he [Joseph] was guilty; he then went on and gave a history of some circumstances respecting the adultery scrape stating that no doubt it was true. Also said that Joseph told him, he had confessed to Emma, . . .

. . . Thomas B. Marsh testifies that while in Kirtland last summer, David W. Patten asked Oliver Cowdery if he Joseph Smith jr had confessed to his wife that he was guilty of adultery with a certain girl, when Oliver Cowdery cocked up his eye very knowingly and hesitated to answer the question, saying he did not know as he was bound to answer the question yet conveyed the idea that it was true. Last fall after Oliver came to this place he heard a conversation take place between Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery when J. Smith asked him if he [Joseph] had ever confessed to him that he was guilty of adultery, when after a considerable winking &c. he said No. Joseph then asked him if he ever told him that he confessed to any body, when he answered No.

Joseph Smith jr testifies that Oliver Cowdery had been his bosom friend, therefore he intrusted him with many things. 2 He then gave a history respecting the girl business.

harmony
God
Posts: 18195
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm

Post by harmony »

Pahoran, we aren't talking about me, remember? My understanding, my behavior, my allegiances are not the subject we're discussing. Shift your focus, man! I am not the subject of this discussion; Joseph is, Joseph's behavior is, the impact of Joseph's behavior is.

Yet you keep making your miniscule and flawed knowledge the issue here. Plutarch has published on LDS history. You have not. His credentials are real. Yours are imaginary. Therefore, when he says that he understands the details and the nuances of the Fanny Alger case, he has credibility. When you deny that such understanding is even necessary, as you do below, that is at least an admission that you don't understand them. And even quite apart from your consistent pattern of dishonesty, that sinks your credibility right out of sight.


Then where is he in this conversation? Oh that's right. He's not here. He hasn't said anything, therefore he isn't the source of your understanding.

And Pahoran... you have no idea what I've published, on what subject I'm published, or what I'm considered expert in. And just because I don't tell you shouldn't be construed to mean I am not published, expert, or a consultant. You don't own your publications. I shall follow your example.

harmony wrote:We're talking about Joseph's dirty lil affair with Fanny. You have yet to demonstrate why you think it should not be characterized as his dirty lil affair (ala Oliver, his friend and contemporary). I don't have to have anything other than the normal understanding of the event, since Oliver, Joseph's friend and contemporary, is the one who characterized it as a dirty little affair. Argue with Oliver, not me.

I don't need to. Oliver subsequently recanted his claims in that regard.


So... you deny this:
Cowdery wrote to his brother Warren, in January 1838, "When [Joseph Smith] was there we had some conversation in which in every instance I did not fail to affirm that which I had said was strictly true. A dirty, nastly, filthy affair of his and Fanny Alger's was talked over in which I strictly declared that I had never deserted from the truth in the matter, and as I supposed was admitted by himself." Johnson cites this letter in support of the contention that Joseph Smith Jr. initiated the first plural marriage with a young woman living in his home as a maid, Fanny Alger.[2] Although not named as a complaint in the letter or excommunication, Cowdery opposed the plural marriage doctrine.


It's from Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cowdery

He also rejoined the Church.


Since I've not left the church, our situations are not similiar and this has no bearing on this discussion. Why are you introducing this red herring?

Knowing vastly more about the matter than you do or ever will.


Fanny Alger was not a factor in Oliver's excommunication, nor was she a factor in his reconciliation with the church. Why are you conflating them? Do you have an agenda, like maybe to obscure what is plain to anyone reading the account?

How committed are you to following his example?


Not at all.

You are baiting and switching here, as you habitually do.


If you think this is bait and switch, you have a strange definition of the practice.

Where, in any "contemporary newspaper," does Joseph make such a denial "in the name of the Lord?"


Any time Joseph spoke from the pulpit, he spoke as God's mouthpiece. He repeatedly denied plural marriage both from the pulpit and from the newspaper, in court testimony, and in the journal's of his contemporaries.

Messenger and Advocate (Aug 1835) pg. 163
"All legal contracts of marriage made before a person is baptized into this church should be held sacred and fulflled. Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife: one woman, but one husband, except in the case of death, when either is at liberty to marry again."


History of the Church, vol. 5, pg. 30 (May 1836) Joseph Smith
"Inasmuch as this Church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication and polygamy, we declare that we believe that one man, should have one wife, and one woman but one husband, except in case of death,, when either is at liberty to marry again."


Benjamin Johnson Letter to Gibbs, 1903 in E. Dale LeBaron (1967)
"And now to your question, 'How early did the Prophet Joseph practice polygamy?' I hardly know how wisely to reply, for the truth at times may be better withheld; but as what I am writing is to be published only under strict scrutiny of the wisest, I will say, that the revelation [D&C 132] to the Church at Nauvoo, July 21, 1843, on the Eternity of the Marriage Covenant and the Law of Plural Marriage, was not the first revelation of the law received and practiced by the Prophet. In 1835, at Kirtland, I learned from my sister's husband, Lyman R. Sherman, who was close to the Prophet, and received it from him, "that the ancient order of Plural Marriage was again to be practiced by the Church." This at the time, did not impress my mind deeply, although there then lived with his family a neighbor's daughter, Fannie Alger, a very nice and comely young woman about my own age, toward whom not only myself, but every one, seemed partial for the amiability of her."
(Date of marriage to Fannie Alger: prior to 1838, probably 1835 when Fannie Alger lived with Joseph Smith)


harmony wrote:
Section 132 is one of the Saints' most precious possessions. It lays out the highest and holiest of the revelations, namely, Celestial Marriage. The notion that it is merely some kind of "cover-up" is disgusting, ugly and filthy.

Well, for that you can blame Joseph.

I prefer to put the blame where it rightly belongs, thanks: with the liars who falsely accuse him without any evidence in support.


Wrong again, Pahoran. There is plenty of evidence, and it damns him.

harmony wrote:He's the one who has no witnesses for this revelation, no collaboration, no supporting evidence.

A great many events have taken place without witnesses, collaboration or supporting evidence. Does that mean they didn't happen?

You have no evidence against the authenticity of the revelation; not a shred.


Indeed, and you have no evidence that the revelation existed anywhere but in Joseph's mind. No witnesses, no heavenly messengers, no written record of when it was received. Which tells me it never was received, just like the priesthood ban (also based on a nonexistent revelation).

harmony wrote:He wrote it, long after his "dirty little affair" with Fanny was discovered,

And much too late for it to be used to "cover up" that plural marriage.


Oh balderdash, Pahoran. Joseph covered up his marriages until the day he died! He lived a clandestine, furtive, hidden life for his last 2 yrs, getting more and more caught up in his lies and flat out ruining his children's and Emma's lives and peace.

It's not my vicious hate propoganda, Pahoran. It's Joseph's words, and the words of Joseph's contemporaries. You are the one ratcheting up the rhetoric, not me.

Really? Did Joseph tell everyone that he "lied in God's name repeatedly?" Those are your words, "Harmony," and your refusal to accept responsibility for them is as cowardly as it is dishonest.


On the contrary, Pahoran, I can prove he lied, and I can prove he did it when he was acting as God's mouthpiece. Therefore, he lied in God's name... repeatedly. (see above quotes)

You are raving. Do you have anything to say at all? Where is all this evidence which you understand so well, but which you claim I cannot grasp?


Sweetie, this is not raving. This is harmony at her nicest, sweetest, most accommodating. And the evidence is all over the web. Just input "Joseph Smith plural marriage" into Google, and you'll hundreds of citations.

As you know, or ought to had you ever actually been an informed Latter-day Saint, nobody's alleged spiritual confirmation--whether real, imaginary or fabricated--can ever be evidence for anyone else. That you attempt to use yours as such is sound evidence against its authenticity.


You might want to take that to heart, Pahoran. Your "Having a rather retentive memory, and having forgotten more about it than you are ever likely to know, I am fully satisfied that he did and does." is less than convincing.

Oh, now anyone who disagrees with you has a diseased mind?

Only when they indulge in filthy fantasies.


No filthy fantasies here, P. Just delivering the message that Joseph lied. You're trying to kill the messenger, but I've got my asbestos suit on, so I'm immune.

Oh, and just by the way: since the Lord went to all the trouble of restoring the Gospel, upon whom did Joseph's prophetic mantle devolve when he lost it?

You?


Not hardly. I'm female. We can't be blamed for any stupidity that comes out over any prophet's signature.

harmony wrote:You are not the spokesperson for the Latter-day Saints, Pahoran.

Tough luck. I am the only one in sight for the purposes of this discussion.


And you have no authority to speak for the church... none.

harmony wrote:Speak only for yourself. You don't know squat about the faith of the LDS.

I know more than you can possibly imagine.


One up. One up. One up. Big deal. Your argument is less than scintillating.

harmony wrote:For the most part, the faith of the LDS doesn't exist, since we know the retention rates and number of full-tithe payers is miniscule in comparison to the official count on the books.

What meaningless blather. I agree that the set of believing Latter-day Saints is not coextensive with the set of members of record; but that does not mean that "the faith of the LDS doesn't exist." That's one of your more idiotic lies, which is saying something.


*sigh* Pahoran, Pahoran. Try to keep up, sweetie. You can't talk about the faith of the LDS, when you can't verify that anyone (not one single person) besides yourself has faith. You can talk about your faith, but you can't extrapolate your faith to anyone else. You don't have the authority to make any claims for the LDS church.

Post Reply