It's always interesting when MG projects, as we get a glimpse into the methods a Mental Gymnast uses to bypass information and dodge questions. Disruption and derailment are his goals, not discussion. On a discussion forum, no less.
You, again, are feeding yourself to the lions. Why do you do that? Just accept that what I said was true, and move on.
As I've said many times, there is absolutely no substance to your responses. Just troll-like following me around with the intent to disrupt and distress. That, in some ways, might be considered to be sadistic behavior. Why would you want others to see that?
You, again, are feeding yourself to the lions. Why do you do that? Just accept that what I said was true, and move on.
Fibber, it seems your reputation precedes you. Whether it's the lurkers or the investigators, no one here seems to buy your version of the truth. It's a testament to your consistency—just one lie after another. That's some great missionary work.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
The early sealings where associated with the introduction of plural marriage. After the Fanny Alger incident I would thing Emma was not too keen on Joseph taking other wives. Emma threw Fanny out not long after she and Oliver made the observation of Joseph and Fanny in the barn. One might safely make the conjecture that Joseph not would be obliged or feel it safe to propose to Emma and ask her that she be one of the first sealings. There was a bit of 'stuff' going on there. She would likely have refused. Without a doubt. Late, she was amenable.
There’s a lot of untruth and baseless assertion in the above post. Joseph wasn’t involved in an incident with Fanny Alger. He was caught having sex with her in the barn. Fanny wasn’t a plural wife, she was an affair. Joseph didn’t get the notion about plural wives until 1841 when he was living with George Harris and took a shine to his wife, Lucinda. Chances to have sex with her were few and far between, so he cleared the way by sending him away “on a mission”. At that point he’d created a situation where he was living and being intimate with more than one wife. Neither Fanny nor Lucinda were marriages or sealings.
As far as Joseph not feeling “obliged” to propose to his wife that he have more affairs, because she might object…the staggering stupidity of the argument smacks everybody in the face. Well. Almost everybody. The point being made is that a man doesn’t have to tell his wife something if he thinks she’ll react badly to it. Better to do it in secret behind her back. What kind of a person can seriously put that forward as a valid and reasoned apologetic argument for Joseph carrying on with women behind his wife’s back? It might be suggested that the argument can only come from someone who is keeping things secret from his own wife, anyone else would see it as ridiculous.
Ask yourself, would you trust Joseph Smith with your wife for months on end whilst you are absent on a full time mission that Joseph ordered you to go on? Would you trust him to look after your 14 year old daughter, in his house, for an extended, unsupervised, period?
You can't even trust that the LDS church isn't hiding predators now, as noted in several recent floodlit reports. When a church starts by justifying what Smith did, it sets a terrible precedent that is still destroying lives today.
There’s a lot of untruth and baseless assertion in the above post. Joseph wasn’t involved in an incident with Fanny Alger. He was caught having sex with her in the barn. Fanny wasn’t a plural wife, she was an affair. Joseph didn’t get the notion about plural wives until 1841 when he was living with George Harris and took a shine to his wife, Lucinda. Chances to have sex with her were few and far between, so he cleared the way by sending him away “on a mission”. At that point he’d created a situation where he was living and being intimate with more than one wife. Neither Fanny nor Lucinda were marriages or sealings.
As far as Joseph not feeling “obliged” to propose to his wife that he have more affairs, because she might object…the staggering stupidity of the argument smacks everybody in the face. Well. Almost everybody. The point being made is that a man doesn’t have to tell his wife something if he thinks she’ll react badly to it. Better to do it in secret behind her back. What kind of a person can seriously put that forward as a valid and reasoned apologetic argument for Joseph carrying on with women behind his wife’s back? It might be suggested that the argument can only come from someone who is keeping things secret from his own wife, anyone else would see it as ridiculous.
Ask yourself, would you trust Joseph Smith with your wife for months on end whilst you are absent on a full time mission that Joseph ordered you to go on? Would you trust him to look after your 14 year old daughter, in his house, for an extended, unsupervised, period?
You can't even trust that the LDS church isn't hiding predators now, as noted in several recent floodlit reports. When a church starts by justifying what Smith did, it sets a terrible precedent that is still destroying lives today.
Well we know for sure that it is. It settles rather than allow the information to go public. The Church only tells the truth when that truth has already got into the public realm. It’s never proactive, and it is never fully honest.
Premise 1. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Premise 2. The best evidence for the Book of Mormon is eyewitness testimony.
Conclusion. Therefore, the best evidence for the Book of Mormon is notoriously unreliable.
You, again, are feeding yourself to the lions. Why do you do that? Just accept that what I said was true, and move on.
Fibber, it seems your reputation precedes you. Whether it's the lurkers or the investigators, no one here seems to buy your version of the truth. It's a testament to your consistency—just one lie after another. That's some great missionary work.
You are representitive of a very limited majority. And thanks again for recognizing my great missionary work!!
Fibber, it seems your reputation precedes you. Whether it's the lurkers or the investigators, no one here seems to buy your version of the truth. It's a testament to your consistency—just one lie after another. That's some great missionary work.
You are representitive of a very limited majority. And thanks again for recognizing my great missionary work!!
Fibber, can you name one person here that thinks you are honest? Just one?
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
