Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 180

Thread: Joseph Smith's First Fraud Conviction

  1. #51
    Richard
    Guest

    Default

    Records of 1826 Trial

    Let us see if we can get a better understanding concerning the time of Joseph Smith and what the examination in 1826 actually tells us.

    We have five records of the 1826 trial. And these were published in eight documents.

    Apr. 9, 1831 - A W. Benton in Evangelical Magazine and Gospel Advocate
    Oct. 1835 - Oliver Cowdery in Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate
    1842 letter from Joel K. Noble (not published until 1977)
    Record torn from Judge Neely docket book by Miss Emily Pearsall (niece)
    Feb. 1873 - Charles Marshall publishes in Frazer's Magazine (London)
    Apr. 1873 - Frazer's article reprinted in Eclectic Magazine (N.Y.)
    1883 - Tuttle article in New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge
    Jan. 1886 - Christian Advocate vol. 2, no. 13 (Salt Lake City, UT)
    May 3, 1877 - W. D. Purple Chanango Union
    It may be that Purple saw the publication in the Eclectic Magazine and that is why he published his account a few years later. There are no complete overlaps in the accounts; we will look at the similarities and differences.

    Finally, we have the bills by Judge Neely and Constable Da Zeng which provide some additional useful details. by Russell Anderson
    Judge Neely Record

    We don't have the actual record that Miss Pearsall had, but the claimed trail of events leads as follows:

    Miss Pearsall tears the record from the docket book of her uncle Judge Neely
    She takes the record with her to Utah when she went to work with Bishop Tuttle.
    Miss Pearsall dies in 1872.
    Charles Marshall copies the record and has it published in Frazer's Magazine in 1873.
    Ownership falls to Tuttle after Miss Pearsall's death
    Tuttle published in 1883 Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia.
    Tuttle gave it to the Methodists who published it in 1886
    Then the record was lost.
    It will be noticed with interest, that although Bishop Tuttle and others had access to the Pearsall account for several years it was not published until after her death. That combined with the fact that the torn leaves were never allowed to be examined, would cast some doubt on the completeness or accuracy of that which was published.

    Mr. Purple - from his memory

    The only other significant account of the trial is given to us by W. D. Purple in 1877, after more than 50 years had elapsed. Since Mr. Purple says that he was asked to make a record at the time of the trial, what he wrote could possibly be the very record that was acquired by Miss Pearsall. We don't really know, but it is unlikely that there was a second record made of the trial. Mr. Purple doesn't use his notes but instead he tells us, "The scenes and incidents of that early day are vividly engraven upon his memory, by reason of his having written them when they occurred, and by reason of his public and private rehearsals of them in later years. He will now present them as historical reminiscenses of old Chenango, and as a precursor of the advent of the wonder of the age, Mormonism."19

    From Fawn Brodie's notes we have the following obituary about Dr. Purple.

    "He was blessed with a most retentive memory and was thoroughly conversant with the county's history. He was a man of strictest integrity and uprightness of character."

    "Dr. Purple possessed a remarkably retentive memory, characterized, also, by a surprising facility for the recollection of dates, statistics, and historical occurrences, so that he was called sometimes, as veritably he was, a walking encyclopedia. He could tell at once the names of the candidates, the year of their nominations, the names, methods, and characteristic and management of all parties, and the principle history of nearly all political leaders during every year of the past eighty years."20

    Do We Have a Court Record?

    We know that the supposed "court record" obtained by Miss Pearsall can't be a court record at all.

    Misdemeanor trials were not recorded, only felony trials
    No witness signatures--they were required in an official record
    It appears to be a pretrial hearing
    Pretrial hearings cannot deliver guilty verdicts
    Let's take an overview of what these various records tell us about this examination in 1826. We will examine these various records under the following categories.

    Why the record is recorded
    Who brought the charges
    What the charge was against Joseph Smith
    Number of witnesses
    Verdict
    Reason for the Record

    First of all the reasons for the record. This is the reason that the people stated for why they were putting forth this information.

    Benton: more complete history of their founder
    Cowdery: private character of our brother
    Noble: explain the character of the Mormons
    Marshal: preserve a piece of information about the prophet
    Purple: as a precursor of the advent of the wonder of the age, Mormonism
    Tuttle: [to show] In what light he appeared to others
    Judge Neely: to collect fees
    So we can see here that most people who gave us these accounts had an agenda. We are not looking at an event through the eyes of an unbiased observer.

    Person Bringing Charges

    If we look at the individuals bringing the charges, we have the following:

    Benton (1831): The Public
    Cowdery (1835): very officious person
    Noble (1842): Civil authority
    Marshall (1873): Peter G. Bridgman
    Purple (1877): sons of Mr. Stowell
    Tuttle (1883): Peter G. Bridgman
    Judge Neely: The Public
    Note that the agreement of Marshall and Tuttle is misleading because they are essentially quoting the same source.

    Whether it was Josiah Stowell's sons or his nephew Peter G. Bridgman, it seems to be close family members. We don't know why Peter G. Bridgman brought the charges, but it could easily have been because he was worried that his uncle was accepting Joseph Smith in his religious claims. Josiah did join the church organized by Joseph Smith and stayed faithful his whole life. As for Peter Bridgman, "Within a month after the trial he was licensed as an exhorter by the Methodists and within three years had helped establish the West Bainbridge Methodist Church. Upon his death in 1872 his fellow ministers characterized him as 'an ardent Methodist and any attack upon either the doctrines or the polity of the Methodist Episcopal Church, within his field of labor, was sure to be repelled by him with a vigorous hand."21

    Is it possible that the trial of Joseph Smith was just one of his first attempts to apply a "vigorous hand?" by Russell Anderson

  2. #52
    Richard
    Guest

    Default

    Summary of Testimonies

    First of all Joseph Smith's testimony. In the Purple account he tells about finding his stone and he exhibits his stone. In the Pearsall record it talks about how Stowell came and got Joseph, "had been employed by said Stowel on his farm, and going to school;" He informed Stowell where to find treasures, and buried coins and that he did it for the previous three years. But Joseph did not solicit and declined having anything to do with the business.

    Joseph Smith Sr.'s testimony is only in the Purple account. We discussed earlier how he felt this power showed that Joseph was a seer and that Joseph Sr. was mortified by the use of the sacred power and that he hoped that eventually it would get used correctly. Since this testimony puts Joseph in a positive light it is understandable why it wasn't included in the published versions of the Pearsall account.

    In the Josiah Stowell testimony in the Purple account Josiah said that Joseph could see 50 feet below the surface, described many circumstances to confirm his words. He said, "do I believe it? No, it is not a matter of belief: I positively know it to be true."

    We go to the Pearsall record, for a slightly different account of the Josiah Stowell testimony. It tells how Joseph "looked through stone, and described Josiah Stowel's house and out-houses while at Palmyra, at Simpson Stowel's, correctly; that he had told about a painted tree with a man's hand painted upon it, by means of said stone;" Josiah tells about Joseph's being employed part time. It also contains the part that "he positively knew that the prisoner could tell, and professed the art of seeing those valuable treasures through the medium of said stone." He talked about finding something for Deacon Attelon that looked like gold ore. Josiah talked about Mr. Bacon burying some money and that Joseph described how there was a feather buried with the money. They found the feather but the money was gone. Josiah said that he "had been in company with prisoner digging for gold, and had the most implicit faith in prisoner's skill."

    Horace Stowell is only found in the Neely record. It is a short testimony that describes where a chest of dollars was buried in Winchester County and that Joseph marked the size of the chest with leaves on the ground.

    Arad Stowel went to see Joseph and wanted Joseph to display his skill. He laid out a book on a cloth. While holding a white stone to a candle, he read the book. Arad said that he was disappointed and went away because to him it was obviously a deception, but he doesn't tell us why he thought it was a deception. It would have been nice if he had told us why he thought that. Was it just that he had his mind made up before he went to see Joseph?

    There are only three testimonies that are duplicated in both the Purple and Pearsall accounts. They are Joseph Smith, Josiah Stowel and Jonathan Thompson. In the Purple account Thompson said that he could not remember finding anything of value. He stated that Joseph claimed there was a treasure protected by sacrifice and that they had to be armed by fasting and prayer. They struck the treasure with a shovel. One man placed his hand on the treasure, but it gradually sunk out of reach. Joseph believed there was a lack of faith or devotion that caused the failure. They talked about getting the blood from a lamb and sprinkling it around.

    Now that same witness in the Pearsall record says that Joseph indicated where the treasure was. He looked in the hat and told them how it was situated. An Indian had been killed and buried with the treasure. So that kind of matches with the Purple account. The treasure kept settling away. Then Joseph talked about salt that could be found in Bainbridge and described money that Thompson had lost 16 years ago. Joseph described the man that had taken it and what happened to the money. There is nothing mentioned about sacrificing sheep or not having sufficient faith and so forth. The Pearsall record is supposedly a more complete written record, but it doesn't have the bleeding sheep, or fasting and prayer that characterizes the Purple account. by Russell Anderson

  3. #53
    Richard
    Guest

    Default

    Marquardt and Walters express a desire for accuracy in detail, "however trivial it may seem." But surely this ought to apply to them as well as to early Mormons. The second part of the "Bibliographical Essay" in Inventing Mormonism is en***led, "2. The 1826 Examination" (pp. 222-30). In one section (pp. 222-23), they examine "Itemized Bills by Justice Albert Neely and Constable Philip De Zeng," making mention of the respective bills being bound in bundles in 1826 and placed in storage. Then their text shifts from a nineteenth-century scene to a twentieth-century event and the declaration: "These and other bills relating to Joseph Smith's Bainbridge court hearings were removed by [Wesley P.] Walters and [Fred] Poffarl27 from the water-soaked box in which they were found and hand-carried to Yale University's Beinecke Rare Book and M****cript Library. They were received back by Chenango County in October 1971. Photographs are on file at the library of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia" (p. 223).

    On the surface this description seems innocuous enough—two men removing documents from a water-soaked box and taking them to a m****cript library for examination and perhaps treatment, and then returning them to the county of origin. These appear to be the thoughtful acts of preservationists at work—seemingly with approval of the county, implied though not actually recorded. Now let's take a second look for the sake of "accuracy," and discuss some of the attendant circumstances. I had been microfilming materials related to Mormonism in the Guernsey Memorial Library and at the same time researching documents in the adjacent Chenango County Office Building in Norwich, New York. The county clerk, John P. McGuire, had allowed me access to the vault. I was looking for the very type of documents later found by Wesley P. Walters and Fred Poffarl, but I had no success. After I carefully checked the records in the vault, Mr. McGuire directed me to the cache of court records which had been placed in storage in the downstairs portion of the jailhouse. These documents had been placed under the immediate supervision of the sheriff, who had given the undersheriff the task of looking after them. Walters and Poffarl were not exaggerating; the documents themselves were water-logged and in water-soaked boxes. After two days of searching hundreds of documents, unfortunately at the wrong end of the room, I had to leave to keep some prior appointments. Shortly after I left, Walters and Poffarl called on Mr. McGuire and were granted the same privilege as I had been in examining the content of the vault. As they finished that project, a clerk in the county office building mentioned to them that Mr. Porter had been working under the jailhouse. On 28 July 1971 they investigated and were successful in locating the elusive bills and some other related records. Taking them from their packets, the men went to the Guernsey Memorial Library. One of the librarians, Charlotte Spicer, told me that they used the photocopy machine, but that it was of poor quality and they didn't like the results. Mrs. Spicer related to me that they then determined to take the court documents elsewhere. Seeing the nature of the papers she advised them to return the documents immediately. She said that "Mr. Walters responded by saying, `that if they were returned the Mormons would dispose of them.' " They then left, removing them from the community and the custody of the county clerk. Fred Poffarl carried them east to Yale. Walters later claimed that they removed the documents without permission because the sheriff and the county historian "were both unavailable at the time."28 At the instigation of Walters, some of the documents with accompanying commentary were published in August 1971 by Jerald and Sandra Tanner in The Salt Lake City Messenger under the ***le, "New Find Undermines Mormonism," as an ongoing exposé of Joseph Smith.29

    I was at that time doing continued research in the East. Richard L. Anderson alerted me to the Tanner treatise on Walters's find. Eager to see the records, I proceeded to Norwich to verify their content. There I met Mae L. Smith, Chenango County Historian, but she was unable to show me the original court documents. She had only photocopies in her possession since the actual bills had been taken away. Mae further informed me that Wesley P. Walters had photocopied the original documents in his possession, and then sent these copies to the editor of the Chenango Union in Norwich as verification of an accompanying article on Mormonism which he asked the newspaper to print. The editor had suspected something was awry and called the attention of Mae Smith to the photocopies. She recognized that court documents had been taken without authorization and, working with the county clerk, contacted Mr. Edwin M. Crumb, Clerk of the Chenango County Board of Supervisors. Mr. James H. Haynes, Jr., Chenango County Attorney, was next directed to write Wesley P. Walters. Mr. Haynes responded on 16 September 1971:

    Dear Reverend Walters:

    Our County Historian, Mrs. Mae Smith, has asked me to write you concerning certain papers that were taken by you from County records stored in the cellar of our local sheriff's office. I have letters about these records which you wrote Mrs. Smith dated August 21, 1971.

    According to Mrs. Smith, these records were taken by you without her permission and she has written you requesting they be returned immediately.

    Will you please contact Yale University immediately and ask that these papers be returned to Mrs. Smith, our County Historian, without any delay whatsoever.30

    The documents were subsequently returned under duress. Obviously the records in that basement room were uncataloged, so there was no way of determining just how many documents had walked out the door. The observer can appreciate the justifiable dilemma of those who had the documents in their charge.

    Someone might say, "Well, they did preserve them by their action—what other option did they have?" Well, let me suggest some alternatives. The county clerk, Mr. John P. McGuire, was a very responsible man, besides being the lawful caretaker of the records. I had worked with him over an extended period of time in targeting certain items of historical value for microfilming by the Latter-day Saint Church genealogical microfilmer. If he had been alerted to the historical value of these documents I haven't the least doubt that he would have taken steps to see that they were removed from the basement and preserved in a safe place for further disposition. Other items of a historical value to the community were already in the vault. Too, Mae Smith, the Chenango County Historian, could have guaranteed their safety and made requisition to obtain possession of them, which was what ultimately happened.31 By taking them away, Walters and Poffarl committed the cardinal sin of possibly compromising their validity. Some felt they had tampered with the evidence during their disappearance. I personally believe that those documents that were returned are valid and intact. But, of course—and this is the problem—that cannot be proven.

    Walters did give an extended explanation of the actions of himself and his friend in 1974, some time after the fact. He reported that he was in immediate contact with Mae Smith and others (a little over three weeks afterwards). His description would lead the reader to believe that everything was amicably smoothed over.32 However, I only know that I saw a bristling Mae Smith when I arrived in Norwich soon after the published report by Walters. She was not at all pleased with the methods of these two men in extracting official documents, a situation that had not changed a year later when I called at the Chenango County Historical Museum to see the elusive documents, which had since been returned. In the press to the fore historians cannot override their local counterparts. Something more was lost in that exchange than the momentary disappearance of records. That nonprofessional act created an air of suspicion in Chenango County officialdom where so much trust had been extended to generations of researchers before this mishap. In retrospect I can still hear the simple request of the county clerk, Mr. McGuire, to all comers, "When you take them out, just put them back where you found them." A few details for the sake of accuracy can provide a wider spectrum of understanding when limited information may have given us a somewhat slanted view of the actual incident.

    The writers have compiled what appear to be "plausible" answers to some long-time trouble spots. This will have an appeal to those anxious for a resolution of certain difficult questions. Marquardt and Walters have crafted their attack on the early historical ins***ution of Mormonism with exceeding care and have written in a convincing style. Their approach will be disarming to readers who may not be able to discern the dividing line between fact and fiction.

    The questions which they have raised have implications for readers that will demand the very best verifiable responses available. As their sources are further digested and critiqued the "winnowing" process will be more complete. Perhaps then the delineation of what is actual versus what might be cl***ified as the "Reinvention of Mormonism" can be further affixed.

  4. #54
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    Do you deny that Joseph Smith was a gl***-looking money digger?

    -BH

    .

  5. #55
    Richard
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    Do you deny that Joseph Smith was a gl***-looking money digger?

    -BH

    .
    Stay on topic good buddy, you can make that another topic, but you did not address anything yet I posted which again makes me wonder about your desire to defend your own OP which is about the supposed trial, which I proved was not. This again is just a standard tactic you use to deflect away form deabating the issues you present.

  6. #56
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    Lets see what the charges really are as we actually list them for all to see:
    The charge is listed in the various accounts as:

    Benton (1831): a disorderly person
    Cowdery (1835): a disorderly person
    Noble (1842): under the Vagrant act
    Marshall (1873): a disorderly person and an imposter
    Purple (1877): a vagrant, without visible means of livelihood
    Tuttle (1882): a disorderly person and an imposter
    Judge Neely: a misdemeanor
    These are terms used in the 19th c. that identified the illegal activies of what are now refered to as "fraud" in legal documents. Smith's game was not unique. However, at that early point in the development of law in the U.S., there were no specific coded statutes that covered every possible crime (which remains true even today). The occult con-game of gl***-looking and money digging was not unique to Smith. It was a common fraud perpetrated by many "vagrants" and "disorderly persons".

    This con also had numerous variations. For example, the con man would steal (or arrange to have stolen) a prized posession - perhaps a watch or a broach or some family heirloom) and then approach the victim with promises of a magical ability to find lost objects ...for a small fee, of course. The con artist would then use his magic rock to "find" the object he had stolen and hidden in some likely place.

    People convicted of what we would call "fraud" for such a crime, were, in the 19th century convicted of "vagrancy" or "disorder".

    -BH

    .

  7. #57
    Richard
    Guest

    Default

    Obviously you did not take the time to read any of my re****al, this was not a trial, no convictions, and as the Bill stated is was for:

    Judge Neely Bill

    Same [meaning People] vs Joseph Smith the Gl*** Looker
    March 20, 1826 Misdemeanor For my fees in examination of above cause $2.68


    Ya think Brian you can stay on topic and try and read the whole article before you misfire again and again. Not a trial good buddy, no conviction, and it was claimed to be nothing more the a examination of facts and testimonies.

    Get a grip, read the facts and evidence, and then realize ya fell for some more of your antiquated plagiarized talking points and ideas.

    Richard.

  8. #58
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    No, wrong. Jesus is not in question here; the personal integrity of JOSEPH SMITH is in question in this thread. But you are reflexively doing what Mormons have been programmed by their cult to do when Joseph Smith is questioned: question Jesus, or the Bible or ANYTHING else to avoid facing the facts.

    After over a dozen posts, you have yet to address the topic of THIS thread. Your deflections and attempted disruptions will not work, Mormon.

    Either get on topic or get lost.

    -BH

    .
    I have shown the utter frivolity and nonsense of this entire topic you started. I have shown the hypocritical standard of the critics.

    My work is done here.

  9. #59
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    Stay on topic good buddy...
    LOL ...yer a funny clown, Richard. "Stay on topic"??? Precisely what do YOU imagine actually IS the topic here, if NOT Smith being a gl***-looking con artist. Please be specific if you dare to answer.

    Short of an answer to that question, I will ask you the question you are avoiding AGAIN: Was Smith a gl***-looking/money digging con artist or not?

    -BH

    .
    Last edited by BrianH; 06-16-2009 at 08:55 AM.

  10. #60
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    I have shown the utter frivolity and nonsense of this entire topic you started.
    That is a lie. In fact, you have failed to even ADDRESS the topic in all 15+ of your posts in this thread. In EVERY SINGLE ONE of your posts here you have tried to change the subject. You have yet to even address the topic, let alone shown any frivoloty or even provide an opposing view.

    Get on topic or get lost, fig. Your disruptive behavior is not appreciated and, in fact does you no credit. Your behavior only shows how Mormons react to evidence that exposes their "prophet" as a fraud - by RUNNING around (mod edit)trying to deflect and distract from the facts.

    -BH

    .

  11. #61
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    Then you love nothing, cuz you have not enlightend me to anything

    Fig, first of all, as I have explained to you DOZENS of times, no one denies that faith is central to Christianity. Gullibility and being led into fantasies about Egyptian-speaking Jewish American Indians building big cities and riding around on elephants is not "faith". It is (mod edit) supers***ion and fantasy.

    Secondly, get on topic here or flee. Your attempt to disrupt this thread only PROVES that you cannot deal with the facts in evidence.

    -BH

    .

  12. #62
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    I did read it.

    The bottom line remains the question from which you obviously must flee (mod edit).

    Was Smith a gl***-looking con artist or not?

    -BH

    .

  13. #63
    Fig-bearing Thistle
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    I did read it.

    The bottom line remains the question from which you obviously must flee like a scared chicken.

    Was Smith a gl***-looking con artist or not?

    -BH

    .
    Did Joseph have a seer stone before he undertook his prophetic calling? Yes. Did he use it for purposes he should not have used it before becoming a Prophet? Yes.

    Con artist? No.

  14. #64
    John T
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle View Post
    I am not at question here. Jesus is. Is Joseph Jesus' true prophet or not? If so, then God should be able to answer the question. And that is precisely where 13 million members have gotten their answer.

    And you have provided no example by which I can accomplish that which even Jesus was unable to do...convince the unbeliever to change his mind. He did so with Paul, but you, Brian, are no 'Paul', and I cannot ask Jesus to appear to you.

    In a previous post, I cataloged your continued rudeness at ignoring the OP, and derailing the thread.

    THE CONVICTION OF JOSEPH SMITH IS THE ISSUE IN THE OP
    You bring up Jesus Christ to rudely derail the thread.
    Your continued rudeness in the face of correction raises LEGITIMATE questions about your character.
    THE CONVICTION OF JOSEPH SMITH IS THE ISSUE IN THE OP-- STICK TO IT!

  15. #65
    John T
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fig-bearing Thistle View Post
    And I say big deal. So what if Joseph was charged and convicted of being a gl*** looker. It's tantamount to Jesus being accused and convicted of gleaning corn on the sabbath. Was Jesus a law breaker? By the standards of the day, one would have to say 'yes'. Big whoop. Spurious and Frivolous.
    In a previous post, I cataloged your continued rudeness at ignoring the OP, and derailing the thread.

    THE CONVICTION OF JOSEPH SMITH IS THE ISSUE IN THE OP
    You bring up Jesus Christ to rudely derail the thread.
    Your continued rudeness in the face of correction raises LEGITIMATE questions about your character.
    THE CONVICTION OF JOSEPH SMITH IS THE ISSUE IN THE OP-- STICK TO IT!

  16. #66
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    Golly John, you seem to think that Fig has failed to even address the topic. You seem to think that Fig is rudely trying to disrupt a thread that poses evidence he does not like.

    I agree with you ....but when I repeatedly asked him to finally get on topic, Fig told ME that he has already "shown the utter frivolity and nonsense of this entire topic".

    Fig's character is indeed in question. But if he really beleives he has even addressed the topic, let alone "shown the utter frivolity and nonsense of this entire topic" I am left to also wonder about his connection with reality.

    -BH

    .
    Last edited by BrianH; 06-16-2009 at 09:44 AM.

  17. #67
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    Did Joseph have a seer stone before he undertook his prophetic calling? Yes. Did he use it for purposes he should not have used it before becoming a Prophet? Yes.

    Con artist? No.
    So then you think he REALLY COULD find buried golden treasure with his magic rock, right?

    Please show me the evidence that you think shows that he SUCCESSFULLY used his little magic rock and his self-claimed occult ability to find buried golden treasures.

    -BH

    .

  18. #68
    John T
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    Golly John, you seem to think that Fig has failed to even address the topic. You seem to think that Fig is rudely trying to disrupt a thread that poses evidence he does not like.

    I agree with you ....but when I repeatedly asked him to finally get on topic, Fig told ME that he has already "shown the utter frivolity and nonsense of this entire topic".

    -BH .
    I am demonstrating that each time he or anyone else crosses the line, and to demonstrate the fact that a person lies when he says one thing, but can not substantiate it. That is the purpose of the catalog below

    I also note that your personal comment to Fig is over the line in that it goes from an obvious, documented pattern, and into a diagnostic area that you are not qualified to make. Please remove it.

  19. #69
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    I think you missed the point, here J.

    I was only confirming what you said. After repeatedly telling Fig to get on topic, he claims that he had fully debunked the entire topic.

    If he REALLY beleives that he has "shown the utter frivolity and nonsense of this entire topic" HAVING NEVER ONCE even addressed the topic, I seriously have to wonder about the boy's mental condition. One need not be a clinical psychologist to see the problem here.

    -BH

    .

  20. #70
    Vlad III
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    If he REALLY beleives that he has "shown the utter frivolity and nonsense of this entire topic" HAVING NEVER ONCE even addressed the topic, I seriously have to wonder about the boy's mental condition. One need not be a clinical psychologist to see the problem here.

    -BH

    .
    More gratuitous bashing of the Mormon PEOPLE.

  21. #71
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    More gratuitous bashing of the Mormon PEOPLE.
    More deliberate efforts to distract from the topic of the thread.

    -BH

    .

  22. #72
    John T
    Guest

    Default I sorta agree

    Quote Originally Posted by Vlad III View Post
    More gratuitous bashing of the Mormon PEOPLE.
    That was NOT directed at the Mormons in general, but at a specific person. He addressed it as "that boy" not "you Mormons..." So please get your facts straight before you complain. It helps one's credibility.

    HOWEVER, in all fairness to Brian, you should note that he edited it out before you could have your reply posted

  23. #73
    Vlad III
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John T View Post
    That was NOT directed at the Mormons in general, but at a specific person. He addressed it as "that boy" not "you Mormons..." So please get your facts straight before you complain. It helps one's credibility.
    Fig is a Mormon.
    Brian is attacking Fig.
    Whether it is a Person or People, it is the same.

    HOWEVER, in all fairness to Brian, you should note that he edited it out before you could have your reply posted
    Really?

    Then why is his post still there with no edits and still says, "I have to wonder about the boy's mental condition?"

    I guess if you want to talk about credibility, you might not equivicate between attacking 1 Mormon vs. many Mormons as a distinction. And you might also check to see if some edited their post of the attack before you claim they do.

  24. #74
    BrianH
    Guest

    Default

    When are you going to address the topic here instead of just whining about ME, Vlad?

    -BH

    .

  25. #75
    Vlad III
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BrianH View Post
    When are you going to address the topic here instead of just whining about ME, Vlad?

    -BH

    .
    Not going to.

    I'll leave that for others.

    I will continue to point out your attacks of Mormon people, though.

    And if you stop attacking the Mormon PEOPLE, I will stop addressing it.

    Deal?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •