I know DV from here and elsewhere. You are reading him wrong. If you were not so apt to pounce anytime anyone mentions God then maybe you would be more fun to discuss things with. The amazing thing is you think you are such a great critical thinker, but your predetermined attitude that anyone who gives God a chance automatically lack critical thinking makes you as irrational as you think they are and even more strident.
Lighten up.
Yeah, I second that. I've been impressed with DV's approach in my interactions with him.
desert_vulture wrote:Calm down fortigurn before you blow a gasket! Sheesh dude. Read Compton's book ISL. Go to the link I provided. THERE IS evidence he was married to her, for Christ's sakes. The primary issue to me is not whether or not they were married, but whether or not their marriage was indeed commanded of God or an adulterous affair posing as a marriage. Don't treat me like those run of the mill TBMs on MADD goddamit. The fact that they were in concealment proves nothing, other than they wanted some privacy while he f***** her lights out. OK? Calm down with the line by line rebuttal and examine the facts first. This isn't RfM.
-DV
A potty mouth response belongs in the Telestial forum. Fortigurn wasn't the one blowing a gasket.
"Happiness is the object and design of our existence... That which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." Joseph Smith
I know DV from here and elsewhere. You are reading him wrong. If you were not so apt to pounce anytime anyone mentions God then maybe you would be more fun to discuss things with. The amazing thing is you think you are such a great critical thinker, but your predetermined attitude that anyone who gives God a chance automatically lack critical thinking makes you as irrational as you think they are and even more strident.
Lighten up.
If I'm reading him wrong all he need to do is address my post and explain my error in perception of what he's written. by the way, I don't pounce on people for their god beliefs, that's in your imagination. What I don't do is allow individuals in discussion to use God to warrant a position they may hold which seems unreasonable. If the jury for the Dan and Ron Lafferty murders allowed their claim of revelation from God to kill, to be used as a justifiable warrant...they'd be found not guilty. And it appears to me D.V. is presenting an argument along these lines. Just because there are individuals who claim J. Smith was sealed to F. Alger does not mean that justifies J. Smith's actions. It doesn't mean that the marriage "was indeed commanded of God" which is what D.V. appears to be implying or arguing for. Just because J. Smith made claims that god commanded him to plural marriage does not mean his plural marriages were " indeed commanded of God ". The problem with this logic stems from the basic assumption "God exists and interferes in the affairs of man". What follows after that assumption is that a God does indeed speak to some men or one man and therefore since God is an authority whatever this one man or men say is also to be taken as authority. The notion of a God belief isn't the problem. It's the notion of a God belief being used to exert control over and manipulate others, which is.
And my perception of his argument is that it is typical of how a TBM would argue/think. So we'll see what if anything he has to say.
Why Me, have you ever prayed to God and specifically asked God to reveal to you whether or not Joseph Smith had sex with any , or many, or all of his plural wives? Have you ever prayed to God and asked him if he had commanded Joseph Smith to have sex with Fanny Alger? Or is your certainty in this strictly a matter of the critics not holding a treasure trove of Joseph Smith's stained sheets that convinces you there's nothing here?
Excuse me but, uh...since not a single primary or secondary historical source (except for the hearsay of the embittered Oliver Cowdery and pure predjudicial assumption) indicates Joseph ever had sex with Alger at all, pehaps you could enlighten us as to what oracular knowledge you possess that Trump's the lack of historical data?
Why Me, have you ever prayed to God and specifically asked God to reveal to you whether or not Joseph Smith had sex with any , or many, or all of his plural wives? Have you ever prayed to God and asked him if he had commanded Joseph Smith to have sex with Fanny Alger? Or is your certainty in this strictly a matter of the critics not holding a treasure trove of Joseph Smith's stained sheets that convinces you there's nothing here?
Excuse me but, uh...since not a single primary or secondary historical source (except for the hearsay of the embittered Oliver Cowdery and pure predjudicial assumption) indicates Joseph ever had sex with Alger at all, pehaps you could enlighten us as to what oracular knowledge you possess that Trump's the lack of historical data?
I'd say Benjamin Johnson's quoting of Warren Parrish counts as a secondary historical source that they were "spied upon and found together." Were Johnson or Parrish embittered or prejudicial?
Why Me, have you ever prayed to God and specifically asked God to reveal to you whether or not Joseph Smith had sex with any , or many, or all of his plural wives? Have you ever prayed to God and asked him if he had commanded Joseph Smith to have sex with Fanny Alger? Or is your certainty in this strictly a matter of the critics not holding a treasure trove of Joseph Smith's stained sheets that convinces you there's nothing here?
Excuse me but, uh...since not a single primary or secondary historical source (except for the hearsay of the embittered Oliver Cowdery and pure predjudicial assumption) indicates Joseph ever had sex with Alger at all, pehaps you could enlighten us as to what oracular knowledge you possess that Trump's the lack of historical data?
So Coggins, you are dismissing all the sources on the thread specifically for you about Fanny I take it.
Obviously, you don't know me. Which would explain why you have confused me with a run of the mill TBM. I am an individual that examines issues objectively, without a set agenda.
Red flag on this initial statement. That's all that needs to be said.
Jason, what's your actual agenda here? If you don't believe that Joseph Smith was a legitimate Prophet, and that he was little more than a lecherous sexual preditor when the opportunity presented itself (and that the doctrine of polygamy was, then by extrapolation, little more than a spiritual gloss for his sexual antics), may I ask by what means you deal with the cognitive dissonace that must ensue and why you remain a part of the church given your obvious belief that its founding (claimed) Prophet was not even worthy of respect as a decent and morally mature human being?