again...I totally reject any suggestion that even one of my posts are against the letter or the spirit of the given rules.
I dont attack anyone...I have never attacked the people here.
Disagree with me?......then find me one place where I attacked anyone in even a slightly personal manner.
You cant...
cuz I dont....
I dont put down any guest's religious views in a direct person, in-your-face manner..
In fact, for the most part I dont even respond to the posts of others around here.
(Most of the time people get all bent out of shape because I have ignored they posts...so that just shows you how off the mark any criticism of me is to say I have attacked anyone in any manner at all.....in fact people are angry most of the time because I dont act like I even pay attention to them at all !!!)
I mostly just stick to talking about historical people and what i think of their teachings and their deeds.
So this means?
So this means I find your statements "Ridiculous", and are perhaps a sign that you are simply following the typical pattern of a CULTIST that is boxed-in by a topic with no way out, and so want to try to "Get personal" in an attempt to change the topic and make the conversation centered on something else (Like me) and not have to deal with the known historical sexual perversions that so dominated so much of Smith's life....
Your words also do remind me of a debate I once listened to between
Walter Martin and a member of a CULT.
Let me tell you about that...
The CULTIST was attempting to defend the history of the CULT'S founder to Walter, and after while when the CULTIST finally had been argued into the same box, the CULTIST exclaimed in frustration that he wanted only to talk about the more modern teachings of the CULT and not have their conversation be so centered on just the very questionable history of their founder.
Walter Martin responded with a laugh,
and said that he did not blame the CULTIST for not wanting to talk about their history.
Walter Martin added that if he were part of a religion with such a history he would not want to talk about it either...
Moving on...
In the link that talks about the sexual history of Smith there is yet a lot of information I have not touched on yet.....and I think there is more than enough found in the accounts of Smith sexual conquests to prove that the man was a monster.
Smith was only in it for the sex.
Smith used the trust people put in him as away to gain sexual access to young girls.
Today, we can see Mormonism as simply the remains of one man's lust