What kind of person was joseph smith. . .REALLY?

[Christian]

History paints him as a scoundrel, a thief, a petty conman, an adulterer, and liar, someone who tried to shoot his way out of jail.

Mormons 'pretty him up' drastically, making him sound like he could walk on water, a 'righteous man.'

So what was he. . .REALLY? Please give checkable references.

[Erundur]

History paints him as a scoundrel, a thief, a petty conman, an adulterer, and liar, someone who tried to shoot his way out of jail.
No, it's only anti-Mormonism that does that, falsely.

[alanmolstad]

History paints him as a scoundrel, a thief, a petty conman, an adulterer, and liar, someone who tried to shoot his way out of jail.

Mormons 'pretty him up' drastically, making him sound like he could walk on water, a 'righteous man.'

So what was he. . .REALLY? Please give checkable references.

Well said.

And I note no one would dare say different

[Phoenix]

Well said.

And I note no one would dare say different
I dare, and many others definitely dare, so you are wrong.

[alanmolstad]

Talk is cheap, but anytime you want to really challenge the conclusions that CHRISTIAN posted above?....feel free...

What conclusions about the Mormon founder Joe Smith did CHRISTIAN post?
Let me quote:

"scoundrel,....

a thief,....

a petty conman,....

an adulterer, ....

and liar, ....

someone who tried to shoot his way out of jail....."

[MickeyS]

Talk is cheap, but anytime you want to really challenge the conclusions that CHRISTIAN posted above?....feel free...

What conclusions about the Mormon founder Joe Smith did CHRISTIAN post?
Let me quote:

"scoundrel,....

a thief,....

a petty conman,....

an adulterer, ....

and liar, ....

someone who tried to shoot his way out of jail....."

Yes we're all well aware of Christians, and your opinion of Joseph Smith and his (an your) willingness to believe ANY story painting him in the worst possible light, and disregarding mountains of positive history regarding his character. (And he's completely en***led to his opinions and beliefs, as you are as well) I'm not sure what that "proves", but again you're both en***led to draw whatever conclusions you choose to, and makes sense if all you choose to regard are stories offered by anti-Mormon sources.

And yes....I completely dare to say different...and will.

[alanmolstad]

History paints him as a scoundrel, a thief, a petty conman, an adulterer, and liar, someone who tried to shoot his way out of jail.

Mormons 'pretty him up' drastically, making him sound like he could walk on water, a 'righteous man.'

So what was he. . .REALLY? Please give checkable references.

They do seem unable to address such charges...mostly they just stick to going after the messenger. ..
We have yet to see someone say he was not guilty of such....


Take the charge he was guilty of adultery. .
Was he or was he not guilty of adultery?

Now I dont fall for any of that **** like , "Oh honest Emma,God says it's ok" cuz, that just sounds like something a guy thinks up when he gets caught dipping his pen in the wrong inkwell.


You have to look at the historical record and see what the facts are...
What are the facts?
Did he cheat on his wife?

Well...it's like this, If we wanted to know if he actually cheated on his wife...all we have to ask and answer is one question -

"Was Mr Zipper involved? "




Yes or no?

[alanmolstad]

so we have our answer to that charge that CHRISTIAN has listed...


the next charge we can look at and view the historical record is....

Was The Mormon Founder Joe Smith, a "a petty conman"?






what does the court records tell us?

[theway]

History paints him as a scoundrel, a thief, a petty conman, an adulterer, and liar, someone who tried to shoot his way out of jail.

Mormons 'pretty him up' drastically, making him sound like he could walk on water, a 'righteous man.'

So what was he. . .REALLY? Please give checkable references.Really? And what "History" paints him as any of these things outside of AntiMormon History?
American History actually named him the most influential religious leader in the Americas in the last 200 years.

The only person's history which has been written here today, is yours....
After all, according to actual history based on known evidence and events, which is correct?

1 Your statement that Joseph "tried to shoot his way out of jail".

2 Or that Joseph tried to defend himself against armed murderers who tried to break INTO jail?

Good thing there is real history so we can know who the liers really are.

[MickeyS]

Now I dont fall for any of that **** like , "Oh honest Emma,God says it's ok" cuz, that just sounds like something a guy thinks up when he gets caught dipping his pen in the wrong inkwell.

I believe that may say more about your character than his if that's all you think about. It's just an observance. You nor anyone else can tell God who is and isn't guilty of adultery, especially if the actions that cause you to suspect were by His command. And people who are married to each other cannot commit adultery, again especially when the marriage was sanctioned by God Himself. You can draw whatever conclusion you like all day long, it does not mean it's fact simply because you said it. You will have it all completely explained to you eventually to where you won't be able to deny or argue.


Take the charge he was guilty of adultery. .
If wanted to know if he actually cheated on his wife...all you have to ask is one question
"Was Mr Zipper involved? ".........

But if you would like to go by your simple standard, was "Mr Zipper" involved...then the answer is "No" since the zipper wasn't even around until the turn of the century. So, your first claim is a solid "No" on all sides.

[Christian]

I dare, and many others definitely dare, so you are wrong.

You are welcome to your OPINION. Just like belly ****ons, most everyone has opinions. The mormon version of joe smith is a very whitewashed one in my opinion. You obviously believe the whitewash.

[Christian]

mickey posted:


Now I dont fall for any of that **** like , "Oh honest Emma,God says it's ok" cuz, that just sounds like something a guy thinks up when he gets caught dipping his pen in the wrong inkwell.

I believe that may say more about your character than his if that's all you think about. It's just an observance. You nor anyone else can tell God who is and isn't guilty of adultery, especially if the actions that cause you to suspect were by His command.

ANYONE can say 'golly gee, GOD told me to commit adultery with that woman. The God of the Bible cannot lie or contradict himself. When women are married to their husbands, God does NOT tell mickey to 'marry' them. That would make him AND THEM adulterers. According to GOD, marriage is the making of ONE FLESH by one man and one woman.

Joe smith was an adulterous letch.

And people who are married to each other cannot commit adultery, again especially when the marriage was sanctioned by God Himself. You can draw whatever conclusion you like all day long, it does not mean it's fact simply because you said it. You will have it all completely explained to you eventually to where you won't be able to deny or argue.

What makes our statements TRUE is how God views marriage ACCORDING TO GOD IN THE BIBLE. Will you tell YOUR wife that God told you that you should have intercourse with that fifteen year old?

Yer 'prophet was an adulterer and an letch. You and he can lie all you want, blame it on God if you want, but that doesn't make it true.

[Christian]

mickey posted:


Now I dont fall for any of that **** like , "Oh honest Emma,God says it's ok" cuz, that just sounds like something a guy thinks up when he gets caught dipping his pen in the wrong inkwell.

I believe that may say more about your character than his if that's all you think about. It's just an observance. You nor anyone else can tell God who is and isn't guilty of adultery, especially if the actions that cause you to suspect were by His command.

ANYONE can say 'golly gee, GOD told me to commit adultery with that woman. The God of the Bible cannot lie or contradict himself. When women are married to their husbands, God does NOT tell mickey to 'marry' them. That would make him AND THEM adulterers. According to GOD, marriage is the making of ONE FLESH by one man and one woman.

Joe smith was an adulterous letch.

And people who are married to each other cannot commit adultery, again especially when the marriage was sanctioned by God Himself. You can draw whatever conclusion you like all day long, it does not mean it's fact simply because you said it. You will have it all completely explained to you eventually to where you won't be able to deny or argue.

What makes our statements TRUE is how God views marriage ACCORDING TO GOD IN THE BIBLE. Will you tell YOUR wife that God told you that you should have intercourse with that fifteen year old?

Yer 'prophet was an adulterer and an letch. You and he can lie all you want, blame it on God if you want, but that doesn't make your whitewashed 'prophet' become true.

[MickeyS]

ANYONE can say 'golly gee, GOD told me to commit adultery with that woman. The God of the Bible cannot lie or contradict himself. When women are married to their husbands, God does NOT tell mickey to 'marry' them. That would make him AND THEM adulterers. According to GOD, marriage is the making of ONE FLESH by one man and one woman

Yes, but at various times in the Bible God condoned polygamy, as you are well
aware. If God gives a prophet (or ANYONE) a commandment, he must fulfill it. And Emma was also well aware that her husband was a prophet of God. The commandment served its purposes, and I believe we are witnessing one of the purposes here, and that is to test faith. BTW...God does not condone polygamy anymore. But you are en***led to your opinions, everybody has them. You are also en***led to your interpretation of who God is and what He can and can't do, we have free agency. I would only caution you before you start making those demands of Him.


Will you tell YOUR wife that God told you that you should have intercourse with that fifteen year old?

First of all, since I'm a woman, I will never HAVE a wife in the first place as one thing God has NEVER condoned is ****sexuality. Secondly, if you're speaking of Helen Mar Kimball (as I've continually explained to Alan) that was not a marriage for TIME & eternity, but a sealing for eternity only to quite literally join the Smith and Kimball family in the eternities. There were both kinds...in the sealings for eternity only, there could be no relations or it would have been adultery. Again, you are en***led to your opinions and ***umptions, but I know you will never find PROOF that Joseph had relations with Helen, so you are clearly making ***umptions.

[Christian]

mickey posted:

Yes, but at various times in the Bible God condoned polygamy, as you are well
aware.

NOT ONCE in Christ's church.

If God gives a prophet (or ANYONE) a commandment, he must fulfill it. And Emma was also well aware that her husband was a prophet of God. The commandment served its purposes, and I believe we are witnessing one of the purposes here, and that is to test faith. BTW...God does not condone polygamy anymore.

Talking out of both sides of your mouth, are you? You mean that just because Utah wouldn't be allowed statehood, your godlet changed his mind?

But you are en***led to your opinions, everybody has them. You are also en***led to your interpretation of who God is and what He can and can't do, we have free agency.

No we don't. God chose those HE chose before the beginnings of the worlds (Ephesians 1 tells you about it). Neither can you willy-nilly 'choose' to have faith in Jesus Christ according to John 6:44 and John 6:65. So IF you decide to 'interpret' God to be anything OTHER than what He is. . .you will go to Hell.

I would only caution you before you start making those demands of Him.

I've made NO demands on God. I have only reported what the BIBLE says. After all, GOD has already spoken. It is not a thing to worry about when I report what HE said.


Will you tell YOUR wife that God told you that you should have intercourse with that fifteen year old?

First of all, since I'm a woman, I will never HAVE a wife in the first place as one thing God has NEVER condoned is ****sexuality.

So if your hubby (if you have one) comes home with a fifteen-year-old girl and wants to have sex with her, that is just fine for you? I don't believe it would be. . .:rolleyes:

BTW you should have taken the moniker 'minny.' Mickey is a BOY mouse name.

Secondly, if you're speaking of Helen Mar Kimball (as I've continually explained to Alan) that was not a marriage for TIME & eternity, but a sealing for eternity only to quite literally join the Smith and Kimball family in the eternities. There were both kinds...in the sealings for eternity only, there could be no relations or it would have been adultery.

Do you make that up as you go?

Again, you are en***led to your opinions and ***umptions, but I know you will never find PROOF that Joseph had relations with Helen, so you are clearly making ***umptions.

No, I am believing GOD when HE told us:

Gen 2:24
24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
NKJV

BY DEFINITION, they weren't 'married' unless they were joined sexually.

Your lecherous 'prophet' would be called a 'sl_t' if he were a woman.

[MickeyS]

If they were ONLY sealed they weren't married for time but eternity only, meaning no sex. Sad you don't understand the concept. Carry on with your insults if it makes you feel like a "Christian". Btw...my first names Dawn, middle name Michelle....Mickey was a much better nickname than Donald, but thank you for feeling you need to ridicule and insult where you can.

Plus, I have stated a few times in my comments that I'm female...I don't know what to tell you if you're not reading my responses

[Christian]

mickey posted:

If they were ONLY sealed they weren't married for time but eternity only, meaning no sex.

NOT according to the BIBLE. GOD placed sex as the consummation of marriage, period. Your pretense that joe the letch smith didn't have sex with these other women is a pathetic joke.

Sorry michelle, but I didn't see your comments anywhere in previous posts that you are female. I'll try to remember that. I am old though, so I might forget. . .

[alanmolstad]

mickey posted:

If they were ONLY sealed they weren't married for time but eternity only, meaning no sex.




CHRISTIAN, did you notice the word "IF"that Mickey posted at the start of the quote?

"If"......

They have to always start every defense of Joe Smith with the word "If" because they don't want to say anything for sure as far as the appe***e Smith had for bedding younger and younger girls goes.

When I see Mickey use the word "If" it reminds me of another Mormon lady that used to post comments on this forum all the time in defense of Smith.

She used to state very flatly that all the Christians that said that Smith had other wives were telling lies.


This is why Mickey and other Mormons when they read that Smith "married" a underage child they will rush to try to put a better spin on that by saying that "Not all the marriages were sexual".

(And yes, it is a rather pathetic attempt to make what are clearly the acts of a child molester look better.)


But in the end...
In the end its a moot point because a normal person if they think about it, will realize that none of us should be part of a religion that has to spend so much time defending it's founder against the rather strong charges that he was an adulterer, a conman, and a child molester.

In the end also the use of the word "If" hints that a person knows what we all know too.....the Elephant in the middle of the Mormon Temple that no one wants to talk about is that there is yet a great possibility of more information to slip out one day about the nature of Smith's sexual actives with children ....



By the way,
That one Mormon lady who used to come here so often and defend the official teaching at the time that Smith only had one wife?
What happened to her you might ask?

Well, when that official story collapsed (and the Mormon church back-tracked and had to admit the truth about the many different women that Smith was married to), well that was apparently the last straw for the Mormon lady, and she stopped showing up here.

Too embarr***ed I would guess...

[MickeyS]

CHRISTIAN, did you notice the word "IF"that Mickey posted at the start of the quote?

"If"......

They have to always start every defense of Joe Smith with the word "If" because they don't want to say anything for sure as far as the appe***e Smith had for bedding younger and younger girls goes.

When I see Mickey use the word "If" it reminds me of another Mormon lady that used to post comments on this forum all the time in defense of Smith.

She used to state very flatly that all the Christians that said that Smith had other wives were telling lies.


This is why Mickey and other Mormons when they read that Smith "married" a underage child they will rush to try to put a better spin on that by saying that "Not all the marriages were sexual".

(And yes, it is a rather pathetic attempt to make what are clearly the acts of a child molester look better.)


But in the end...
In the end its a moot point because a normal person if they think about it, will realize that none of us should be part of a religion that has to spend so much time defending it's founder against the rather strong charges that he was an adulterer, a conman, and a child molester.

In the end also the use of the word "If" hints that a person knows what we all know too.....the Elephant in the middle of the Mormon Temple that no one wants to talk about is that there is yet a great possibility of more information to slip out one day about the nature of Smith's sexual actives with children ....



By the way,
That one Mormon lady who used to come here so often and defend the official teaching at the time that Smith only had one wife?
What happened to her you might ask?

Well, when that official story collapsed (and the Mormon church back-tracked and had to admit the truth about the many different women that Smith was married to), well that was apparently the last straw for the Mormon lady, and she stopped showing up here.

Too embarr***ed I would guess...

I'm not even reading anything past that first sentence. Let me CLARIFY for you AGAIN Alan

IF YOU SEE ANYBODY THAT WAS SEALED FOR ETERNITY ONLY THAT MEANS NO SEX. No marital relations for TIME (this earth) the sealing is for ETERNITY (after this earth) That's what that sentence CLEARLY means since I have ALREADY stated the Smith/Kimball joining was a sealing only...do I need to explain it AGAIN or do you understand my words?? If you're confused...scroll up, just..a tad...


Secondly, if you're speaking of Helen Mar Kimball (as I've continually explained to Alan) that was not a marriage for TIME & eternity, but a sealing for eternity only to quite literally join the Smith and Kimball family in the eternities. There were both kinds...in the sealings for eternity only, there could be no relations or it would have been adultery.

I had clearly already made it...clear

I'm sorry you wasted all your words...again. Please Alan...please...please give your PROOF that the joining of Joseph and Helen included sex. Please. You surely have it, since you're so positive it happened. Except your ONLY "proof" clearly went out the window since Mr Zipper wasn't involved...so, please, give your OTHER proof...or was that all you had?

[MickeyS]

Christian, you may address me by my username only as per forum rules, thank you

As far as being clear on the female part, I think I'm thinking of things I've said to Alan, so I apologize...however you've been pretty good at reading what I say to Alan anyway, this was my latest affirmation since Mickey said to Alan

"Right....and since I don't imagine me and Apologette having a girls night out anytime soon...my confusion stands."

...but reading some of my past stuff....how could you NOT know I'm a woman?? LOL Man you musta thought I was a wuss bag ;) ;)

[alanmolstad]

I'm not even reading anything past that first sentence.....?
how brave of you....



Let me know when we both are suppose to read past the first sentence then.....

[MickeyS]

how brave of you....



Let me know when we both are suppose to read past the first sentence then.....

It's IRRELEVANT Alan...as it had absolutely not one thing to do with what I said....I dare say it was perhaps "unknowingly" dishonest. Though you know very well what I said and what I have said. So, why should I read it? I've read it before, except this time you Included me, so again...completely irrelevant to the conversation except that you love to bring up that "nice Mormon lady" whenever you can.

You kind of remind me of these regulars that used to come into the bar I worked at in a previous life that just had to fit in their same old "glory days" stories even where they don't belong....Awww, bless yer heart, it's funny, really.

Perhaps you would like to read past my first sentence?

Maybe not?

Too embarr***ed I would guess.

[alanmolstad]

It's IRRELEVANT Alan..
So are we reading past the 1st sentence then, I was not informed that changed?

[MickeyS]

So are we reading past the 1st sentence then, I was not informed that changed?

Yeah....spoiler alert....everybody's already heard it. So not really much of a spoiler alert then huh lol ;)

[theway]

how brave of you....

Let me know when we both are suppose to read past the first sentence then.....LOL.... What's funny is that I only got to the end of the first or second sentence before I quite reading your nonsense also. I rarely will.
You NEVER provide anything new that hasn't been already debunked or explained years ago. Or you post videos from people like, Walter Martin, who has no credibility or scripture knowledge....

The bottom line is.... You're just plain boring. That is why no one posts here anymore, your rhetoric and rants are just not up to the task of threatening the LDS Church, or at the very least.... Entertaining.

[MickeyS]

History paints him as a scoundrel, a thief, a petty conman, an adulterer, and liar, someone who tried to shoot his way out of jail.

Mormons 'pretty him up' drastically, making him sound like he could walk on water, a 'righteous man.'

So what was he. . .REALLY? Please give checkable references.

I have a question for you...why are you asking the question when you state you already have the answer? I kind of tried to elude to this in one of my comments, but I'm just going to simply ask it. Why do you ask a question if you believe you already KNOW the answer? Is there a purpose to this?

[alanmolstad]

I have a question for you...why are you asking the question when you state you already have the answer? I kind of tried to elude to this in one of my comments, but I'm just going to simply ask it. Why do you ask a question if you believe you already KNOW the answer? Is there a purpose to this?

Many times Christ asked the 12 a question too...why would he do that?.....

[MickeyS]

Many times Christ asked the 12 a question too...why would he do that?.....

Are you putting Christian on the same level as Jesus Christ? Because that would be implying that He knows all things pertaining to the Gospel which would put you yourself in a position to be wrong about a great many things as there is plenty he disagrees with you about as well. Why would you not follow and believe all that Christian says if you believe him to be on the same level as Christ?

[MickeyS]

Many times Christ asked the 12 a question too...why would he do that?.....

Are you putting Christian on the same level as Jesus Christ? Christian is no better a person than anyone else here. Again, is there anyway to get an actual answer to my question?

[alanmolstad]

Are you putting Christian on the same level as Jesus Christ? Christian is no better a person than anyone else here. Again, is there anyway to get an actual answer to my question?
Yes...
I point out that example Christ gave in how to cause people to draw out their own conclusions....ttheir own answers.
Good *** CHRISTIAN!

[Erundur]

So what was he. . .REALLY? Please give checkable references.
Emily D. Partridge Young: "Joseph was a prophet of God, and a friend of man. His was a noble character. All who knew him can testify to that ***ertion. He was all that the word gentleman would imply—pure in heart, always striving for right, upholding innocence, and battling for the good of all." (Letter to Lulu Clawson Young, June 27, 1897, Church Archives, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah; punctuation and capitalization modernized.)

Peter H. Burnett: "He was much more than an ordinary man. He possessed the most indomitable perseverance. . . . His manner was so earnest, and apparently so candid, that you could not but be interested. There was a kind, familiar look about him, that pleased you. He was very courteous in discussion, . . . [and] had due deference to your feelings. . . . I saw him out among the crowd [who had been his enemies], conversing freely with every one, and seeming to be perfectly at ease. In the short space of five days he had managed so to mollify his enemies that he could go unprotected among them without the slightest danger" (An Old California Pioneer [1946], 40).

Brigham Young: "We know him to have been a good man, we know that he performed his mission, we know that he was an honorable man and dealt justly, we know his true character." (Journal of Discourses 3:366)

“It must weigh heavily in the balance of history,” remarks Richard Lloyd Anderson, “that Oliver Cowdery, later a discriminating and astute lawyer, lived a school term in the Smith home in Manchester in 1828-9 and defended the Prophet and his family as ‘industrious, honest, virtuous, and liberal to all.’” (Anderson, “The Reliability of the Early History of Lucy and Joseph Smith,” 23, citing L.D.S. Messenger and Advocate 2 (1855), 200)

Frederic G. Mather, a professional writer and a non-Mormon, interviewed residents of Harmony, Pennsylvania, in about 1880 who still remembered Joseph Smith as “a good and kind neighbor.” (Frederic G. Mather, “The Early Days of Mormonism,” Lippincott’s Magazine 26/152 (August 1880): 200-201)

The Masonic grand master of the state of Illinois was surprised to find Joseph “hospitable, polite, well-informed and liberal. . . . Instead of the ignorant and tyrannical upstart, judge my surprise at finding him a sensible, intelligent companion and gentlemanly man. In frequent conversations with him he gave me every information that I desired, and appeared to be only pleased at being able to do so.” (Quoted in Cannon, Life of Joseph Smith the Prophet, 352)

An English traveler, recounting his visit to Nauvoo in 1843, reported that Joseph was “a kind, cheerful, sociable companion.” (Quoted in Cannon, Life of Joseph Smith the Prophet, 355)

http://josephsmith.net/article/character-of-joseph-smith?lang=eng
http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Character/Was_he_a_disreputable_person
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2015/10/another-installment-on-joseph-smiths-character.html

[MickeyS]

Yes...
I point out that example Christ gave in how to cause people to draw out their own conclusions....ttheir own answers.
Good *** CHRISTIAN!

Oh, in that case, if you believe those are his intentions here, then I completely concur! Because this has caused me to research the "history" you refer to, the sources they come from and I continue to build upon my testimony. So if that is only intention, then that is awesome. But if you mean his intention is to try to cause people to come to HIS conclusion because HE says it's right, and it's what HE believes is the truth, I will continue to remind you, he is not Jesus Christ. And that is who I will continue to go to for my conclusions. :)

But why does he need "checkable references"? And to what end does that come to? And who's *** is it to judge what is a "checkable reference" and what isn't? Because I haven't personally seen one "checkable reference" to back up any of the "history" he refers to. Are you sure you don't want Christian to answer this?

[alanmolstad]

well...people like to see a "paper trail" whenever possible.

Take for instance the charge that Joe Smith was a conman....
When someone attacks or defends Joe Smith on this charge that Smith was in-fact a conman, we like to see what if any paper trail there is for us to follow.
And when we do follow the all the available data where does it lead us?




Was Joe Smith ever tared and feathered?

Was there ever an attempt to castrate Joe Smith for sleeping around with a little underage girl?

such charges need to have data to help us see what is real and what is false.
...and a paper trail is what we really want to see,

Either for the support of such charges, or for showing that such things never took place.
So what does the paper trail show?




The same is true with the charge that Joe Smith was guilty of adultery.




And speaking of Joe's adultery, Im reminded of that nice Mormon lady who used to come here and put up such a strong defense against the charge by Billy and Jim that Smith had other women that he so-called "married" and took to his bed.

the nice Mormon lady firmly declared all such claims against Joe as falsehoods that were invented by Anti-Mormons.

As for proof to backup her defense of Smith?...oh she had tons of proof!

I remember she would post quote after quote of references that showed the Joe Smith only had one wife, and that all the other stuff was just baseless gossip>

Based on the wording style of the things she was posting in defense of Smith , Im guessing that she was just posting things she was told by her church leadership, or was just copy/pasted off a church website.

Like I said, people like to see a good paper trail and it meant a lot to the nice Mormon lady that she had so much documentation to support her claim that Smith only had one wife...

[MickeyS]

well...people like to see a "paper trail" whenever possible.

Take for instance the charge that Joe Smith was a conman....
When someone attacks or defends Joe Smith on this charge that Smith was in-fact a conman, we like to see what if any paper trail there is for us to follow.
And when we do follow the all the available data where does it lead us?


Was Joe Smith ever tared and feathered?

Was there ever an attempt to castrate Joe Smith for sleeping around with a little underage girl?

such charges need to have data to help us see what is real and what is false.
...and a paper trail is what we really want to see,

Either for the support of such charges, or for showing that such things never took place.
So what does the paper trail show?

Oh yes Alan....do show us....please, what DOES the "paper trail" show? :)

[alanmolstad]

And when we do follow the all the available data where does it lead us?




Was Joe Smith ever tared and feathered?



Luke Johnson, who was appointed a member of the first Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1835-also a brother to Marinda wrote:

While Joseph was yet at my father's, a mob of forty or fifty came to his house, a few entered his room in the middle of the night, and Carnot Mason dragged Joseph out of bed by the hair of his head; he was then seized by as many as could get hold of him, and taken about forty rods from the house, .............The mob ........... put poured tar over him, and then stuck feathers in it and left him. [then] part of the mob went to the house that Sidney Rigdon occupied, and dragged him out, and besmeared him with tar and feathers.

[alanmolstad]

And speaking of Joe's adultery, ..


Fanny Alger

A fourth Kirtland incident occurred in about 1835 with nineteen year old Fanny Ward Alger, one of ten children born to church members Samuel and Clarissa Alger. McLellin continued his narrative to Joseph Smith III:

Again, I told her [Emma] I heard that one night she missed Joseph and Fanny Alger. She went to the barn and saw him and Fanny in the barn together alone. She looked through a crack and saw the transaction!!! She told me this story too was true.

***ociate President Oliver Cowdery said that he learned of this incident from Joseph Smith himself and that Joseph had confided to him that "he had confessed to Emma," seeking her forgiveness. Fanny Alger and her family left Kirtland, in September 1836 and moved to Dublin, Indiana, where she married non-Mormon Solomon Custer shortly after on November 16, 1836. Joseph Smith never saw Fanny Alger again.

Benjamin F. Johnson would later say that the Alger incident was "one of the Causes of Apostasy & disruption at Kirtland altho at the time there was little Said publickly upon the subject."

Oliver Cowdery was probably the first to openly talk about the Alger affair. In November 1837, he "insinuate that Joseph Smith Jr. was guilty of adultery" in a conversation with George W. Harris and again with Apostle David W. Patten. In a letter to his brother Warren Cowdery on January 21, 1838, Oliver was more blunt. He referred to Smith's deed as "a dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Algers."

Obviously, Cowdery had lost respect for his close ***ociate. On April 12, 1838, Oliver was excommunicated, with nine charges listed, the second being for "seeking to destroy the character of President Joseph Smith jr by falsly insinuating that he was guilty of adultery."

Several Mormon scholars have claimed that Fanny Alger was Joseph's first polygamist wife.

However, to make the case, they need to persuasively explain the following problems.

(1) There is no marriage/sealing ceremony or record of the ordinance.

(2) A witness was not present.

(3) There is no text of a revelation permitting polygamous marriage. Joseph Smith may have talked about polygamy in Kirtland, but there is no evidence that he practiced it until April 5, 1841, at Nauvoo.

(4) The LDS Church believes Joseph Smith received the keys to "seal" couples for eternity on April 3, 1836, not before.

(5) Alger left the state and quickly rejected counsel by marrying a non-Mormon, something one would not expect from a plural wife.

[Christian]

I have a question for you...why are you asking the question when you state you already have the answer? I kind of tried to elude to this in one of my comments, but I'm just going to simply ask it. Why do you ask a question if you believe you already KNOW the answer? Is there a purpose to this?

I already know what HISTORY has revealed. I am interested why people like YOU accept the whitewashed mormon myth of smith instead of what HISTORY RECORDS.

[Christian]

Yes...
I point out that example Christ gave in how to cause people to draw out their own conclusions....ttheir own answers.
Good *** CHRISTIAN!

Thank you.

[Christian]

Oh, in that case, if you believe those are his intentions here, then I completely concur! Because this has caused me to research the "history" you refer to, the sources they come from and I continue to build upon my testimony. So if that is only intention, then that is awesome. But if you mean his intention is to try to cause people to come to HIS conclusion because HE says it's right, and it's what HE believes is the truth, I will continue to remind you, he is not Jesus Christ. And that is who I will continue to go to for my conclusions. :)

But why does he need "checkable references"? And to what end does that come to? And who's *** is it to judge what is a "checkable reference" and what isn't? Because I haven't personally seen one "checkable reference" to back up any of the "history" he refers to. Are you sure you don't want Christian to answer this?

In the literary world, we refer to them as CITATIONS. We ask for them so that we may CHECK THE VERACITY of what you claim.

[MickeyS]

Luke Johnson, who was appointed a member of the first Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1835-also a brother to Marinda wrote:

While Joseph was yet at my father's, a mob of forty or fifty came to his house, a few entered his room in the middle of the night, and Carnot Mason dragged Joseph out of bed by the hair of his head; he was then seized by as many as could get hold of him, and taken about forty rods from the house, .............The mob ........... put poured tar over him, and then stuck feathers in it and left him. [then] part of the mob went to the house that Sidney Rigdon occupied, and dragged him out, and besmeared him with tar and feathers.

Oh yes..it's well documented that Joseph Smith was tarred and feathered just as it was documented that John The Baptist was beheaded, and apostles were crucified. What does that prove again? You keep talking about "proof" & "paper trails" while providing neither. Can you please provide your "paper trail" of WHY he was tarred & feathered?

[MickeyS]

In the literary world, we refer to them as CITATIONS. We ask for them so that we may CHECK THE VERACITY of what you claim.


I was speaking of the ministry of Jesus Christ, and Alan's claim that your purpose was exactly as Christ in leading His disciples and apostles to coming to their own conclusions regarding the Gospel.

Btw...please provide your CITATIONS of your conclusions. Thanks

[MickeyS]

I already know what HISTORY has revealed. I am interested why people like YOU accept the whitewashed mormon myth of smith instead of what HISTORY RECORDS.

Please provide your citations...checkable references..etc...

[MickeyS]

Fanny Alger

A fourth Kirtland incident occurred in about 1835 with nineteen year old Fanny Ward Alger, one of ten children born to church members Samuel and Clarissa Alger. McLellin continued his narrative to Joseph Smith III:

Again, I told her [Emma] I heard that one night she missed Joseph and Fanny Alger. She went to the barn and saw him and Fanny in the barn together alone. She looked through a crack and saw the transaction!!! She told me this story too was true.

***ociate President Oliver Cowdery said that he learned of this incident from Joseph Smith himself and that Joseph had confided to him that "he had confessed to Emma," seeking her forgiveness. Fanny Alger and her family left Kirtland, in September 1836 and moved to Dublin, Indiana, where she married non-Mormon Solomon Custer shortly after on November 16, 1836. Joseph Smith never saw Fanny Alger again.

Benjamin F. Johnson would later say that the Alger incident was "one of the Causes of Apostasy & disruption at Kirtland altho at the time there was little Said publickly upon the subject."

Oliver Cowdery was probably the first to openly talk about the Alger affair. In November 1837, he "insinuate that Joseph Smith Jr. was guilty of adultery" in a conversation with George W. Harris and again with Apostle David W. Patten. In a letter to his brother Warren Cowdery on January 21, 1838, Oliver was more blunt. He referred to Smith's deed as "a dirty, nasty, filthy affair of his and Fanny Algers."

Obviously, Cowdery had lost respect for his close ***ociate. On April 12, 1838, Oliver was excommunicated, with nine charges listed, the second being for "seeking to destroy the character of President Joseph Smith jr by falsly insinuating that he was guilty of adultery."

Several Mormon scholars have claimed that Fanny Alger was Joseph's first polygamist wife.

However, to make the case, they need to persuasively explain the following problems.

(1) There is no marriage/sealing ceremony or record of the ordinance.

(2) A witness was not present.

(3) There is no text of a revelation permitting polygamous marriage. Joseph Smith may have talked about polygamy in Kirtland, but there is no evidence that he practiced it until April 5, 1841, at Nauvoo.

(4) The LDS Church believes Joseph Smith received the keys to "seal" couples for eternity on April 3, 1836, not before.

(5) Alger left the state and quickly rejected counsel by marrying a non-Mormon, something one would not expect from a plural wife.

I'm still waiting for a paper trail...what is this??

Oh, I know what this is. This is an article compiled of various 3rd hand "accounts", conjecture, ***umptions and other such rhetoric by an editorial cartoonist. I know you didn't cite your reference, but I know how to copy,paste & Google.

Please provide a valid checkable reference.

[alanmolstad]

I was speaking of the ministry of Jesus Christ, and Alan's claim that your purpose was exactly as Christ in leading His disciples and apostles to coming to their own conclusions regarding the Gospel.

Btw...please provide your CITATIONS of your conclusions. Thanks

see Mark 8:27
"Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?"

Now Im sure Jesus already knew who the people were saying Jesus was...
I dont think anyone thinks that Jesus was totally in the dark and was asking the Disciples questions that He was in the dark about.

But, rather, ...lets read on..

Mark 8:28"They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets."

The key part of this verse at :28 is the word "They" replied..
They all could answer this question...its a nice safe question...it does not force a person to look at the facts and information and form an opinion about Jesus.


So Jesus again speaks...
Mark 8:29 " "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

Here we see Jesus turn and confront his Disciples , he asks a questions that will force a person to find and ansswer, to draw their own conclusions...


And in the next part of that same verse we see the pay-off
Mark 8:29 Peter answered, "You are the Messiah."

Of the 12 Disciples that were asked, only one guy is able to reach the goal that Jesus had pointed them all to with his question.

This is Peter's statement of faith.
This faith is what Jesus would build his church on.

It was a faith given by the Father, and found by being confronted by a question.



This same manner of leading people to faith in Christ is something that Dr Walter Martin was known to do as well.
I will be posting a link today of a debate between Ed Decker and Walter martin where you can see how Walter martin will ask questions about Mormonism as a means to open the door to understanding the world of the CULTS.


Thus I fully support the same manner of reaching out to people by Christians here on this message forum too!
Its a very good way to do outreach,for its inspired by the example of the Master Himself!!!!!





So keep up the Good Work CHRISTIAN!
Your hard work will be blessed by the Lord many times over Im sure!

[MickeyS]

Alan.....sigh....nice try, truly.

Once again, Christian is not gently leading his disciples to the truth, you CLEARLY discredited your theory when you stated that Jesus KNEW what the disciples already knew, He was simply leading them to what was already in their heart. Christian is not asking a question knowing that others believe he's right. He is asking questions HOPING others are going to contend with him. WHY ELSE would he demand this proof? Christ never needed to do that, because He knew there would be no great battle. He taught His disciples to move on and shake the dust off their feet if their message was not heard. He didn't even draw out long battles with His enemies...THEY did that.

Try again.


I really really feel sorry for you that you believe a grand purpose is being unfolded here. I do. I pray for you. I keep coming full circle...sigh. Again, explaining this all to you I am brought again to MY part in continuing this. Contention is created by TWO sides after all :(

[Christian]

Mickey posted to alan:

Alan.....sigh....nice try, truly.

Once again, Christian is not gently leading his disciples to the truth,

In REALITY I am. You just do not recognize the Truth when you see it. Instead, you make excuses for your own religion.

you CLEARLY discredited your theory when you stated that Jesus KNEW what the disciples already knew, He was simply leading them to what was already in their heart.

Is it YOUR theory that He DIDN'T know what the disciples already knew. . .Who He is? Or that He didn't ask them "Who do YOU say that I am??

Christian is not asking a question knowing that others believe he's right.

No, and I DON'T claim to be Jesus.

He is asking questions HOPING others are going to contend with him.

Are you now pretending to be a mind-reader (long distance, of course) by trying to tell us what I HOPE for or think?

WHY ELSE would he demand this proof?

Simple. To verify the veracity of YOUR case. If you claim Joe smith was a communist, you had better be able to prove it, or we will have NO REASON AT ALL to believe you. Same thing if you claim joe smith walked on water.

We are not interested in mere OPINION. We want you to show us VERIFIABLE FACTS. If you cannot, you have nothing to offer anyone.

Christ never needed to do that, because He knew there would be no great battle.

HOW MANY TIMES did Jesus quote the OLD TESTAMENT that the people already knew to be true? No great battle? Let's see now. . they CRUCIFIED Him, didn't they?

He taught His disciples to move on and shake the dust off their feet if their message was not heard. He didn't even draw out long battles with His enemies...THEY did that.

In one instance, He did that. Yet GOD ALSO SHOWED US IN SCRIPTURE:

2 Tim 4:2-5
2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
NKJV

Your religion has been turned aside to fables by joe smith and others who made up ALL SORTS of fables for you to follow, from your 'jesus' being a spirit brother of satan on down. . .

Again, explaining this all to you I am brought again to MY part in continuing this. Contention is created by TWO sides after all :(

We CHRISTIANS obey GOD when we contend for the faith. Sorry if it offends you.

Jude 3-4


3 Beloved, while I was very diligent to write to you concerning our common salvation, I found it necessary to write to you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.
NKJV

[MickeyS]

"Are you now pretending to be a mind-reader (long distance, of course) by trying to tell us what I HOPE for or think?"

That's all I was originally asking. What your purpose is in this. That was all. Without an answer I can only speculate. Alan was the one that was answering for you.

I was only asking what particular purpose you had in asking this question, and what the purpose of the references were.

Also who determines what "history" is? Because you are certain of what "history" shows but haven't shown where you have received this information. Without that being established...checkable references are impossible to provide with no parameters set. In other words.....there is no possible answer to this question if those factors are not determined.

Anyway...that's it, that's all I asked. I haven't received answers, so what else can I do but reach conclusions with the information at hand?

Then you said this
"Simple. To verify the veracity of YOUR case. If you claim Joe smith was a communist, you had better be able to prove it, or we will have NO REASON AT ALL to believe you. Same thing if you claim joe smith walked on water.

We are not interested in mere OPINION. We want you to show us VERIFIABLE FACTS. If you cannot, you have nothing to offer anyone."

Wonderful...So, since you made the claim first.....PROVE IT.


Btw...corrections in misinterpretations of my comments
When I said "no great battle", I meant, He knew what was already in the hearts of His disciples, He was not drawing answers from them in anticipation for an argument (great battle) He already knew what to say and what to ask that would lead them to their conclusions. I was speaking specifically regarding the preaching He did with His apostles...in direct response to the question Alan asked. Because He likened your approach to that of His teaching the apostles. I don't understand where you got all that other stuff from, since I was not speaking of His enemies.

[Christian]

minnie posted:

"Are you now pretending to be a mind-reader (long distance, of course) by trying to tell us what I HOPE for or think?"

That's all I was originally asking. What your purpose is in this. That was all. Without an answer I can only speculate. Alan was the one that was answering for you.

I was only asking what particular purpose you had in asking this question, and what the purpose of the references were.

So you SPECULATED by trying to tell us what I HOPED or THOUGHT? Your SPECULATIONS are so pathetic. . .!

Also who determines what "history" is? Because you are certain of what "history" shows but haven't shown where you have received this information. Without that being established...checkable references are impossible to provide with no parameters set. In other words.....there is no possible answer to this question if those factors are not determined.

Anyway...that's it, that's all I asked. I haven't received answers, so what else can I do but reach conclusions with the information at hand?

YOU CLAIM joe smith was a prophet of God. . .SO PROVE YOUR CLAIM. So far all you have is someone who has been shown in this forum to have committed adultery, lied, and been a peepstone gazer. In other words, YOU CANNOT PROVE YOUR CLAIM AT ALL.

Then you said this
"Simple. To verify the veracity of YOUR case. If you claim Joe smith was a communist, you had better be able to prove it, or we will have NO REASON AT ALL to believe you. Same thing if you claim joe smith walked on water.

We are not interested in mere OPINION. We want you to show us VERIFIABLE FACTS. If you cannot, you have nothing to offer anyone."

So, since you made the claim first.....PROVE IT. PROVE joey smith was a prophet of God, not just a nasty old adulterer that multiple witnesses have said 'took' other men's wives as dirty old adulterer would.

SO PROVE YOUR CLAIMS IF YOU THINK YOU CAN. Otherwise simply admit that joey smith was simply a dirty old man.

[MickeyS]

This post was not about Joseph Smith being a prophet of God, so you have simply moved those goalposts again because you have no verifiable sources (or ANY sources for that matter) regarding the "history" you speak of. The OP was about the kind of man he was, (NO mention about him being a prophet of God) and you made claims regarding that. So again...back up your claims.

PS - asking someone to "prove" an individual is a prophet of God is like an atheist asking for proof that there IS a God. So...if that is now your request, you have set completely unrealistic parameters (again) for your post just as an atheist could say since you can provide no proof that God exists then He doesn't. Again....another illogical pointless demand.

[Christian]

This post was not about Joseph Smith being a prophet of God, so you have simply moved those goalposts again because you have no verifiable sources (or ANY sources for that matter) regarding the "history" you speak of. The OP was about the kind of man he was, (NO mention about him being a prophet of God) and you made claims regarding that. So again...back up your claims.

PS - asking someone to "prove" an individual is a prophet of God is like an atheist asking for proof that there IS a God. So...if that is now your request, you have set completely unrealistic parameters (again) for your post just as an atheist could say since you can provide no proof that God exists then He doesn't. Again....another illogical pointless demand.

All of the illogical and pointless demands seem to be coming from you. You do like to make your 'strawman arguments' don't you (logical fallacies, of course. . .)

As for sources, they have been posted in these forums for years, but you guys seem to like to put your fingers in your ears and go lalalalaala. . .

Joe smith violated so much SCRIPTURE that he has proved himself to be a fraud so many times it is sickening. Yes, you guys seem to like to put your fingers in your ears and go lalalalala. . .with that too.

So you end up with. . .nothing of value, of course. Just a false religion and a false prophet who made up a bunch of junk.

[MickeyS]

All of the illogical and pointless demands seem to be coming from you. You do like to make your 'strawman arguments' don't you (logical fallacies, of course. . .)

As for sources, they have been posted in these forums for years, but you guys seem to like to put your fingers in your ears and go lalalalaala. . .

Joe smith violated so much SCRIPTURE that he has proved himself to be a fraud so many times it is sickening. Yes, you guys seem to like to put your fingers in your ears and go lalalalala. . .with that too.

So you end up with. . .nothing of value, of course. Just a false religion and a false prophet who made up a bunch of junk.


There have been no verifiable or checkable "histories" provided in this forum, therefore in-valid, plus YOU are the one making this specific claim about "history" so you need to provide the source of which "history" you are referring to since there are many claims.

I have built no straw man, I am addressing your OP DIRECTLY. YOU however are changing the OP and now adding that we "prove" Joseph Smith was a prophet. The logical fallacy of moving the goalposts.

You're asking that we disprove what "history" says about Joseph Smith without providing the "history" to disprove, only your stated opinion. I'm addressing your demand for us to prove you WRONG. Yours is the logical fallacy of burden of proof.

[MickeyS]

All of the illogical and pointless demands seem to be coming from you. You do like to make your 'strawman arguments' don't you (logical fallacies, of course. . .)

As for sources, they have been posted in these forums for years, but you guys seem to like to put your fingers in your ears and go lalalalaala. . .

Joe smith violated so much SCRIPTURE that he has proved himself to be a fraud so many times it is sickening. Yes, you guys seem to like to put your fingers in your ears and go lalalalala. . .with that too.

So you end up with. . .nothing of value, of course. Just a false religion and a false prophet who made up a bunch of junk.


There have been no verifiable or checkable "histories" provided in this forum, therefore in-valid, plus YOU are the one making this specific claim about "history" so you need to provide the source of which "history" you are referring to since there are many claims.

I have built no straw man, I am addressing your OP DIRECTLY. YOU however are changing the OP and now adding that we "prove" Joseph Smith was a prophet. The logical fallacy of moving the goalposts.

You're asking that we disprove what "history" says about Joseph Smith without providing the "history" to disprove, only your stated opinion. I'm addressing your demand for us to prove you WRONG. Yours is the logical fallacy of burden of proof.