mentalgymnast wrote: If you feel the need to respond to this post using sexual innuendo or reference, that's OK. If that's who you are, go with it. I heard my share of it in the drum section way back in high school.
mentalgymnast wrote: If you feel the need to respond to this post using sexual innuendo or reference, that's OK. If that's who you are, go with it. I heard my share of it in the drum section way back in high school.
What, you got something against sex?
MG: nope.
Regards, MG
Whats wrong? Didn't get any band camp action?
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
Mercury wrote:When 19-20 year old children rance around like fags in Mr Mac suits spouting joes gibberish to half retarded folk, their spiritual "witness" that the Book of Mormon is true is good enough for you but when experienced exmormons state they deny this bull you have a problem with it? Your logic is both flawed and egregiously biased.
Get a clue before you get smacked again by those with more knowledge than you.
MG: I have a son on a mission. Some corrections to your statement above. My son doesn't rance around like a fag. My son doesn't wear a Mr. Mac suit. He doesn't spout jibberish...he's well educated and articulate. He just baptized an educated, wonderful, moral man (his wife and child may follow along soon) into the church. Definitely not a retard.
The rest of your post, you can have it your way.
Regards,
MG
[Mod Note: Edited to remove dialogue windows-Bond]
Last edited by _mentalgymnast on Wed Jun 06, 2007 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mentalgymnast wrote: If you feel the need to respond to this post using sexual innuendo or reference, that's OK. If that's who you are, go with it. I heard my share of it in the drum section way back in high school.
What, you got something against sex?
MG: nope.
Regards, MG
Are you sure, or are you repressing the fact that you seem sexually repressed?
Maturity has nothing to do with how much sexual innuendo you avoid. Embrace your sexuality. That's what real grown ups do. It's part of who you are. Don't shun from it.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
mentalgymnast wrote: MG: I have a son on a mission. Some corrections to your statement above. My son doesn't rance around like a fag. My son doesn't wear a Mr. Mac suit. He doesn't spout jibberish...he's well educated and articulate.
What, you mean he's not following the lesson plans? That would make sense if he really is "well educated and articulate."
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
mentalgymnast wrote:MG: I have a son on a mission. Some corrections to your statement above. My son doesn't rance around like a fag. My son doesn't wear a Mr. Mac suit. He doesn't spout jibberish...he's well educated and articulate. He just baptized an educated, wonderful, moral man (his wife and child may follow along soon) into the church. Definitely not a retard.
The rest of your post, you can have it your way.
Regards, MG
I change nothing. Missionaries prance around shilling for a corporation that wants what they feel is their ten percent. They wrap a business around a fluffy sacharin sweet message of half truths and outright lies.
Those dupes your son converts will not stay in the church for long and quite frankly if he was so smart, the mark your son just baptised will one day learn of all the unchristian beliefs and farcical temple ceremonies. At that point, if he already has not, he will leave. There is just too many reasons to find the LDS church wanting as pertaining to its truth claims.
Frankly every person your son pesters curses your name for allowing a child to prance around like a fag and harass people in the name of god.
[Mod Note: Edited to remove extra dialogue windows-Bond]
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
rcrocket wrote:As to Quinn's claim, exactly what is his source for this?
I don't know Quinn's source, but Gary Dean Guthrie wrote in his 1969 Masters thesis at BYU entitled "Joseph Smith as an Administrator" (p. 81), in connection with the bank failure:
Joseph and Sidney Rigdon were tried in court for violating the law, and were found guilty and fined $1,000. They appealed on the grounds that the institution was an association and not a bank; the plea was never ruled upon as the bank suspended payments and closed its doors.
This is a paraphrase from the 1888 work I cited. This does not appear to be a criminal suit, but a qui tam action initiated by a private individual. I want to see the judgment of conviction. I'll bet guthrie cites only the 1888 anti-Mormon work.
rcrocket wrote:This is a paraphrase from the 1888 work I cited. This does not appear to be a criminal suit, but a qui tam action initiated by a private individual. I want to see the judgment of conviction. I'll bet guthrie cites only the 1888 anti-Mormon work.
B.H. Roberts wrote this:
In March, 1837, the Prophet as treasurer, Sidney Rigdon as secretary of the ill-fated "Kirtland Safety Society," were arrested upon a charge of violating the banking laws of the state. They were adjudged guilty in the Geauga county court, but appealed from the decision on the ground that the "Kirtland Safety Society" was not a bank. This question never was ruled upon by the courts, as both Sidney Rigdon and the Prophet were compelled to flee the state for security of their personal safety from false brethren, before the case could be heard.
B.H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol. I, p. 403 (bold mine for emphasis).
Roberts has a footnote after the first sentence in the above quote, in which he cites to Kennedy's Early Days of Mormonism. He also quotes Kennedy to the effect that the private citizen who brought the complaint might be entitled under Ohio law to a portion of the fines imposed (a type of "qui tam" case, as I understand the term). Roberts quotes Kennedy as stating the complainant "decided to enrich himself, harass the Mormons and vindicate the law by one bold stroke." Id. p. 403, n. 25.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
rcrocket wrote:This is a paraphrase from the 1888 work I cited. This does not appear to be a criminal suit, but a qui tam action initiated by a private individual. I want to see the judgment of conviction. I'll bet guthrie cites only the 1888 anti-Mormon work.
B.H. Roberts wrote this:
In March, 1837, the Prophet as treasurer, Sidney Rigdon as secretary of the ill-fated "Kirtland Safety Society," were arrested upon a charge of violating the banking laws of the state. They were adjudged guilty in the Geauga county court, but appealed from the decision on the ground that the "Kirtland Safety Society" was not a bank. This question never was ruled upon by the courts, as both Sidney Rigdon and the Prophet were compelled to flee the state for security of their personal safety from false brethren, before the case could be heard.
B.H. Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol. I, p. 403 (bold mine for emphasis).
Roberts has a footnote after the first sentence in the above quote, in which he cites to Kennedy's Early Days of Mormonism. He also quotes Kennedy to the effect that the private citizen who brought the complaint might be entitled under Ohio law to a portion of the fines imposed (a type of "qui tam" case, as I understand the term). Roberts quotes Kennedy as stating the complainant "decided to enrich himself, harass the Mormons and vindicate the law by one bold stroke." Id. p. 403, n. 25.
If a true qui tam case, it was not a criminal prosecution. Qui tam cases are initiated by private individuals. The early state versions appeared to require state prosecution as quasi-criminal (fines instead of judgment), but the standards for "guilt" were civil, not criminal. But, I am somewhat speculating without seeing the Ohio code and the piece of paper showing a "conviction." But, I didn't know that Roberts covered this in CHC. Seems that if he covered it in CHC and, at the same time, contended that Joseph Smith was never convicted of a crime he must have understood the distinctions here.
But the original thread here was that Joseph Smith committed "perjury." I would still like to see proof of that. You may not have it but the original poster may have found it by now.
rcrocket wrote:If a true qui tam case, it was not a criminal prosecution. Qui tam cases are initiated by private individuals. The early state versions appeared to require state prosecution as quasi-criminal (fines instead of judgment), but the standards for "guilt" were civil, not criminal. But, I am somewhat speculating without seeing the Ohio code and the piece of paper showing a "conviction." But, I didn't know that Roberts covered this in CHC. Seems that if he covered it in CHC and, at the same time, contended that Joseph Smith was never convicted of a crime he must have understood the distinctions here.
But the original thread here was that Joseph Smith committed "perjury." I would still like to see proof of that. You may not have it but the original poster may have found it by now.
rcrocket
Who the hell do you think you are? Miracle Max? Oh, i get it...he was not a criminal. He was "mostly" a criminal.
Do you honestly have anything to add other than masturbatory attempts at deflecting your so-called prophets sordid past?
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning