The Shiftless, Lazy, Lying Smith Family

[cksalmon]

I'm sure you understand what you just wrote, but I don't.

Are you just insulting me or do you have something to say about what I have

pointed out in Abanes' abysmal book?

Bernard

Neither, Bernard.

Best.

cks

[rabanes]

FWIW, it's identical in the second edition (thanks again, Richard , I do wish you had made a correction list so it is easier to find the improvements as it's mostly the problems that are focused on and it's hard to gauge the difference between the editions).

I'm going to get this up online, most likely before the year's end. I'll post something here. Send my a PM, so I can alert you.

RA

This is almost comical. Richard's big "test" for determining if a prophet is "real" is that he has to have the "right" God. This is, quite possibly, the silliest answer I've ever seen given to this question. It is silly because it is completely subjective. It provides no criteria by which to measure the proclaimed prophet. It simply sets Richard up to exclude Smith using his own pre-determined criteria of who the "real" God is.

I prefer biblical, rather than comical. Beginning with someone's view of "God" is a perfectly reasonable and intelligent place to start out exploring whether or not they are a true prophet. I mean, if someone come sup to me and says, "I'm a prophet of the Most High God," and I ask, "Who's God," and they said, "God is the one, cosmic light of Seven Rays, who was born in the shadows of the Xenorian Moon in the Belorham a plane of Matter-Anti-Matter" --- well, I don't think I'll need to go much further. Or, if a "prophet" says God is a man, when the Bible says he's not a man, well.....oh, wait a minute. Uhm, , you get my point.

In other words, if Joseph had a sterling character, fed widows and orphans, was the most handsome guy around, and could preach a sermon to curl your toes, if he had the wrong God, then he's not a prophet of the one true God. So, that is why starting out with the "Who Is God" question is great. And far from being some kind of hair-brained notion of my own, I refer you to the Bible's qualifications of a prophet, which apparently also thinks it's important that they have the right God:

"If prophets or those who divine by dreams appear among you and promise you omens or portents, 13:2 and the omens or the portents declared by them take place, and they say, "

Let us follow other gods

" (whom you have not known) "and let us serve them," you must not heed the words of those prophets or those who divine by dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you, to know whether you indeed love the LORD your God with all your heart and soul" (Deuteronomy 13:1-3).

This is what Joseph did, INMHO, when he said that all the church of Christendom were wrong, and that the God worshiped by Christendom was the wrong God, and then offered to the world his "man in form" God to worship. It's another God to me. And as a result, it's another Jesus. Add to that another Spirit, and another Gospel. And all of that, I believe, has been demonstrated quote clearly to many people - Mormon and non-Mormon (and Ex-Mormon) alike.

If you don't see things that way, then fine. On a purely human level, I wish you the best, and would defend your right to believe as you do, per free agency and Freedom of Religion -- and also condemn what I found to be excessive attacks against you (e.g., publicly mocking or degrading what is sacred to you by way of appalling conduct like protesting outside Temples with holy undergarments on display, or disrupting Mormon marriages, etc. etc. etc.).

I think, just my opinion here, that what you don't like about my answer is that it doesn't go in the direction you want it to go.RA

[Confidential Informant]

This is what Joseph did, INMHO, when he said that all the church of Christendom were wrong, and that the God worshiped by Christendom was the wrong God, and then offered to the world his "man in form" God to worship. It's another God to me. And as a result, it's another Jesus. Add to that another Spirit, and another Gospel. And all of that, I believe, has been demonstrated quote clearly to many people - Mormon and non-Mormon (and Ex-Mormon) alike.

And yet, almost every aspect of God that Smith attributed to him, (i.e. corporeality) is attested to by the scriptures, whereas, the Trinitarian God you profess, is not. So, once again your definition of a prophet boils down to a subject selection of what scriptural verses you like verses those you can explain away. While I'm not expert, I would very much suspect that your misunderstanding the Deuteronomy text you cite. In the end, yours is not a test that can be applied in any coherent fashion

I think, just my opinion here, that what you don't like about my answer is that it doesn't go in the direction you want it to go.

Actually, it went pretty much exactly where I expected it to go.

C.I.

[rabanes]

Bernard: So much for an impartial historical account of the hearings. Selective quoting?

RA: Clearly, you are hunting and pecking and seeking with great desperation for anything either omitted or added that you can somehow twist and pervert in order to not admit that the account of this incident by my hand is not really as bad as you would like it to be. I see how you completely ignored my refernce to the Haun's Mill Massacre.

Bernard: ... you grouse that I didn't quote your description of them being arrested. So, let's quote you where you want it:"The women were sobbing and screaming, believing their husbands would be killed. But none were." How kind of the Missourians!

RA: Seriously? That's all you see when you look at the page? Wow. You missed a whole lot there. Try quoting from "At 8:00 a.m."........THROUGH........"remaining faithful to their God."

You get the sense and feeling that these people were about as screwed to the wall as they could get. Again, I was focusing on the events leading up to that trial because I found those events more evocative and more releavent to the Mormon people as a whole -- their experiences. So, go write your own book.

BERNARD: It just drips with sympathy for the Mormons. Those sobbing women! Yet the merciful Missourians spared their husbands.

RA: Anyone who reads the chapter will see that this is NOT how I portrayed the situation or the people involved. Can you understand: "....in front of the riotous taunts and jeers of hundreds upon hundreds of Missouri militiamen, some of whom 'attempted to intimidate the Mormons by picking their flints and priming their guns, as if they were making ready to fire.'" These people, to any objective reader, do NOT come off as very nice folks at all -- let alone "merciful Missourians." Bernard, please....

thesometimes Saint: So only a non-Mormon can respond to your book? Talk about stacking the deck.

RA: I never said that, but I just think it's very telling that the only negative reviews I've gotten from the book (at least that I've seen) has been by Mormons, interestingly. And since others, including Juliann's beloved "credentialed academics from real universities" seem just fine with it, well........

RA

While I'm not expert, I would very much suspect that your misunderstanding the Deuteronomy text you cite. In the end, yours is not a test that can be applied in any coherent fashion

No surprise here.

RA

[Zakuska]

And yet, almost every aspect of God that Smith attributed to him, (i.e. corporeality) is attested to by the scriptures, whereas, the Trinitarian God you profess, is not. So, once again your definition of a prophet boils down to a subject selection of what scriptural verses you like verses those you can explain away. While I'm not expert, I would very much suspect that your misunderstanding the Deuteronomy text you cite. In the end, yours is not a test that can be applied in any coherent fashion

You know its intresting to note that pattern developing in the scriptures and in Christian thought.

God was always considered corporeal in the OT... and as time went on and the theologians and creed smiths began spinning we see such developments as the Joahnian comma to read back the new doctrine into the text. Even deuteronomy its self reinterpets much of Exodus. Such as what exactly it was that the 70 saw on the Mt.

Ex. 24: 10-11

10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

[rabanes]

You know its intresting to note that pattern developing in the scriptures and in Christian thought.

Here we go.................. . God is a man.

"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitiesâ??his eternal power and divine natureâ??have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creatorâ??who is forever praised. Amen" (Read Romans 1).

What about Ex. 24: 10-11?

Been there, done that. It, along with every other such verse, has been answered again, and again, again, and again, again, and again, again, and again, again, and again, again, and again, again, and again, again, and again, again, and again.

RA

[juliann]

Okay, but first a few questions:

1. Exactly what will it matter to you? My guess = It will matter zero. I could list 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.....100 "credentialed academics from real universities" who quote from my work, and let's be honest, J., it wouldn't mean a hill of beans to you. So, tell me why I'm going to make a list for you.

2. Are you talking just about my LDS-related books, or other books as well?

3. You seemed to not care about what Frank Beckwith, lead editor of

The New Mormon Challenge

(with your beloved Mosser and Owen), had to say about

Inside Today's Mormonism

, so I'm sure sure how the above request is any different.

Care to share?

How long do you think you can avoid answering and avoiding what I am asking for? I have already said I don't care what is being said about your book. It is a simple question. How many mainstream scholars (that means those not doing apologetics) have used ONUG as a source in their books and articles?

Simple, plain and clear question. You have now danced around it three times.

[Zakuska]

Here we go.................. . God is a man.

According to the book Moses wrote he was...

Ex 15

3 The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.

PS. Richard... Your Romans 1 verse does not talk out agaisnt God haveing a body or not. Stone does not Breath. God does. Gold does not feel. God does.

[juliann]

Been there, done that. It, along with every other such verse, has been answered again, and again, again, and again, again, and again, again, and again, again, and again, again, and again, again, and again, again, and again, again, and again.

RA

As is the case for your effort to convince anyone that ONUG is anything but an anti-Mormon diatribe. I encourage everyone to do a google on Richard and note the cross section of people he annoys on the internet. He fights with just about everyone. And that's not even counting the lawsuits.

Again, what do you want from us, Richard?

[rabanes]

Simple, plain and clear question. You have now danced around it three times.

LoL. I'm not dancing around anything, Juliann. I asked you:

1. Exactly what will it matter to you? ..... So, tell me why I'm going to make a list for you.

2. Are you talking just about my LDS-related books, or other books as well?

3. ... I'm not sure how the above request is any different. Care to share?

Please answer me, before I waste my time. I want to know beforehand what the point is, and if it will make th ebook leigitmate in your eyes.

Remember, I'm the one who knows that it's been quoted by "credentialed academics from real universities." And now, BTW, I see you added an extra safety qualifier it seems, with the words, "that means those not doing apologetics."

So now, suddenly, "credentialed academics from real universities" doens't include any Christians who do apologetics? That would basically support my contention about your views all along. Just seeking clarification.

RA

Again, what do you want from us, Richard?

I posted that one, Juliann. Just scroll up a few.

RA

[juliann]

I have already made the distinction that a level playing field is mainstream academic scholarship. All apologetic sources are off the table....LDS and yours. Why the reluctance? If ONUG is a widely used reference it would be surprising but I would sincerely like to know.

I notice you are currently keeping the world safe from Oprah Winfrey and Rick Warren. They have much more influence than us poor despised Mormons. So why are you here, Richard? What do you want from us?

[rabanes]

According to the book Moses wrote he was...Ex 15 3 The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.

I was waiting for that. Please see Inside Today's Mormonism, pp. 148-150, under the sub-heading, "A Man of War; A Son of A Man." TY

RA

[Markk]

On a rather venomous evangelical "countercult" discussion board that I look in on every few weeks, one of the posters declares that Mormonism can be explained as part of an effort by the Smith family to evade work.

Apparently both dishonesty and sloth ran in the Smith family's veins (in Emma's too, which is something of a genetic miracle).

I immediately thought of an article that I wrote quite some time ago: â??Can the 1834 Affidavits Attacking the Smith Family Be Trusted?â? Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, September 1993 Update. Reprinted in John W. Welch and Melvin J. Thorne, eds., Pressing Forward with the Book of Mormon: The FARMS Updates of the 1990s (Provo: FARMS, 1999), 285-288.

HI Dan,

Being in construction for 30 years, I have had and worked with allot of people who worked every day, did side jobs on weekends, yet were down right lazy. I'm not sure your article puts this kind or persons and perspective into the equation. A good example might be a Mr. Haney from Green Acres. Haney always had an angle, he worked his rear off, but was one lazy man. I think we all know people like this, people who always have an angle, people in construction ( or any profession) that will work there rears of "finding an easier way". People who will spend all day working hard with all their energy trying to find a better way to screw in light bulb.

I believe that the Smith Family was like good ole Mr. Haney in my reading of History, which is some where between Hurlbuts reckoning and the glorified "edited" LDS portrayal.

I believe JS was one VERY "street smart" person, who started something that just keep snowballing and rolling that even he couldn't slow it down or stop it. Many of his prophecies show this in that they were convenient to get him out of a jamb or receive a benefit. This snowballing led to his murder and martyrdom.

Was the Smith Family like this? It is a very high possibility, your article does not put into the mix of accounts.

Mark

John 1:12

[Kevin Christensen]

Richard says:

And far from being some kind of hair-brained notion of my own, I refer you to the Bible's qualifications of a prophet,

I agree that this would be a good place to start. But let's do it comprehensively. Thirty years ago, I located around 30 different Bible tests for prophets, each of which I can neatly pair with complimentary tests for false prophets. And when considering the tests, let's also consider the Mote-Eye rule. Any application of a Biblical test for a prophet that requires us to reject a Biblical prophet cannot be the proper application of the rule.

And we could also consider the behaviors and arguments of those who rejected Biblical prophets. I've considered around 70 different arguments in the Bible. It's useful to look at them all, but also useful to consider that they boil down to people saying either, â??It's not what I want?â? or â??It's not what I think.â? The implication is that you have to be willing to risk what you want, and what you think, to actually offer to up a broken heart, and a contrite spirit.

Finally, it would be worthwhile to comprehensively look at the approaches that the Bible recommends for seeing truth.

So rather than selectively proof-texting to suit one's preconceptions, based on an arbitrarily selected text and givining presentist interpretation, we can comprehensively consider the question of whether and how a person living in the days of Jeremiah or Jesus or Peter or Paul might have dealt with the issue, and apply that to the question of Joseph Smith. What are we looking for in a prophet? How should we test a candidate? What mistakes should we avoid? And how should we conduct ourselves in approaching the question, based on Biblical standards for finding truth?

I've been needing an excuse to put this information in electronic form. (At the moment, I have a not quite complete stack of notes and drafts from the days of typewriting and liquid paper.) So it may take a little while. I'm thinking of doing a hypertexted CHM and/or pdf.

Interested? Even if we disagree about how to interpret and apply the information, at least we'd be dealing comprehensively with information the Bible provides, and not just a convenient proof text.

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[rabanes]

I have already made the distinction that a level playing field is mainstream academic scholarship. All apologetic sources are off the table....LDS and yours.

So you toss out evangelical apologists and you toss out LDS apologists and let the chips fall? Is that what you're saying? I just want to be clear here. That's all.

Why the reluctance? If ONUG is a widely used reference it would be surprising but I would sincerely like to know.

1. I am not being reluctant, I am wanting to understand precisely what is going on.

2. I never said "widely used," did I? Widely used???? I will say upfront that my book is probably not "a widely used reference." My goodness, Mormon studies in general is not a "widely" anything! And our initial conversation didn't even have anything to do with "widely used." It was simply regarding my book being quoted by scholars. Then drifted to only non-Christian, non-LDS scholars.

You're initial statement in #135 was as follows: "I think a lot of us prefer to look to the experts for that and leave the Harry Potter bashing to you." And then came the following:

In #160, you noted: "You don't accept our theology....we don't accept yours. So let's stick with the credentialed academics from real universities to maintain a level playing field."

In #174, you said, "With the advent of evangelicals Mosser and Owens who made it embarrassingly obvious that the traditional anti ministries were losing the battle and didn't even know it because of their utter inability to address the growing sophistication of Mormon apologetics and number of scholars Mormonism was producing."

In #195, you said, "So how many times has ONUG been used as documentation by Beckwith (who is no longer an Evangelical, BTW) in one of his later books or articles?"

(and my light-hearted response should have told you I don't monitor who does and who doesn't quote my books as the years go by, do you really think anyone does this, J.? I mean seriously? If you want Beckwith's opinion of my book -- call/write him).

In #195, you also stated: "I believe Owen (also no longer an Evangelical) used your book as an example of the sorry state of anti-Mormon literature so it is odd you would have sought him out.

(please provide me a link to this statement by Owen, or a citation to prove it, otherwise please retract it).

In #203, you added: "n other words, scholars are

not

quoting your ground breaking book (unless they are talking

about

it, as Mosser and Owen do)."

(You just mention scholars here, J., and say nothing about WIDELY quoting my book. Also, again, please

provide me a link to this statement by Owen [and now you add Moser], or a citation to prove it, otherwise please retract it).

In #208, you state: "I'd really like to see who is using your book as a source. Who and in what journals and publications?"

(You say nothing about WIDELY quoting my book.)

In #223, you said: "he would tell us what mainstream scholars were using his work as a source to document their own work.

(Where is "widely used" mentioned?)

In #232, you suddenly asked for a number: "How many mainstream scholars (that means those not doing apologetics) have used ONUG as a source in their books and articles?

(Please tell me, Juliann, how am I supposed to know exactly how many scholars, all over the world, in various university lecture papers, books, margazine articles, journals, etc. have ever quoted my work? That can't be a serious question. How many? Here's your answer: I have absoluetly no idea how many. This is a different question entirely than do they quote my work. The answer to that is yes.)

So what do you want Juliann? A number? I have no number.

Do you want me to answer if it's "widely used"? I'd have to say, no, I don't think "widely used," but again, I truly have no idea, and neither do you, nor does anyone, unless they were to start sifting through hundreds of post-ONUG books/periodicals. You want to do that? Go ahead, be my guest.

Are you asking me if scholars have indeed referenced it? Yes -- both Christian and non-Christian.

Do you want a few names and citations? Well, we are now back to my question, which you STILL have not answered -- What difference at all will it make to you? Will that SUDDENLY shift your entire perspective of my work/book to a grudging acceptance of it as a legitimate, worthwhile, and a beneficial addition to such material? You tell me: What difference will it make to you?

I notice you are currently keeping the world safe from Oprah Winfrey and Rick Warren. They have much more influence than us poor despised Mormons. So why are you here, Richard? What do you want from us?

I'm keeping the world safe FROM Rick Warren???? Is that what you said: "...safe from Oprah Winfrey and Rick Warren"?

Hmmm, you've just showed how closely you do your research, Juliann. I'm not keeping the world safe FROM Rick Warren, who you seem to think I put in a New Age category with Oprah Winfrey.

Juliann, Rick Warren is my pastor and friend. He's an awesome guy. I'm defending him against Fundies who are attacking him. Read closer next time. But this was certainly indicative of FAIR's level. Thank you for the example.

R.A.

[Confidential Informant]

I think Kevin's idea is FABULOUS. What say you, Richard. Are you willing to actually participate in this exercise, or will you excuse yourself from the scrutiny it entails?

C.I.

[Confidential Informant]

HI Dan,

Being in construction for 30 years, I have had and worked with allot of people who worked every day, did side jobs on weekends, yet were down right lazy. I'm not sure your article puts this kind or persons and perspective into the equation. A good example might be a Mr. Haney from Green Acres. Haney always had an angle, he worked his rear off, but was one lazy man. I think we all know people like this, people who always have an angle, people in construction ( or any profession) that will work there rears of "finding an easier way". People who will spend all day working hard with all their energy trying to find a better way to screw in light bulb.

I believe that the Smith Family was like good ole Mr. Haney in my reading of History, which is some where between Hurlbuts reckoning and the glorified "edited" LDS portrayal.

I believe JS was one VERY "street smart" person, who started something that just keep snowballing and rolling that even he couldn't slow it down or stop it. Many of his prophecies show this in that they were convenient to get him out of a jamb or receive a benefit. This snowballing led to his murder and martyrdom.

Was the Smith Family like this? It is a very high possibility, your article does not put into the mix of accounts.

Mark

John 1:12

Okay, once again the lawyer in me jumps up and just has to ask: How are you defining "laziness?" Once you've defined that, then you have to show that the folks of Joseph's day were using the same twisted definition that you seem to be using. Somehow, I very much doubt that they were using the same trumped-up definition that you seem to be using.

In fact, I think this post of yours was just silly.

C.I.

[Markk]

Okay, once again the lawyer in me jumps up and just has to ask: How are you defining "laziness?" Once you've defined that, then you have to show that the folks of Joseph's day were using the same twisted definition that you seem to be using. Somehow, I very much doubt that they were using the same trumped-up definition that you seem to be using.

In fact, I think this post of yours was just silly.

C.I.

HI CI,

It's a commen sense approach, it's an observation of life, are you saying you do not know people like this? There is a family like this in every ward I was ever in, I have a Aunt and Uncle like this, they are very wel to do and never had a real job for any lenght of time, but hey had allot of angles. People can work very hard at getting nothing done, I deal with them everyday, I hire and let them go all the time, but most the time they implode do to this behavior.

It's easy to say this is silly, but if you choose tell me how I am wrong on this,...LoL...give me some meat CI? We can go through John Witmeres history, JS mothers...etc, and we can see.

Marl

John 1:12

[rabanes]

I think Kevin's idea is FABULOUS. What say you, Richard. Are you willing to actually participate in this exercise, or will you excuse yourself from the scrutiny it entails?

Do you actually believe this is not ground already covered a bazillion times since Mormonism's founding? I don't mean that in a negative way, but CI, it's been done, and done, and done. It's old ground, just to be covered again and again. Look, my views on both LDS history and LDS doctrine have been summed up in two major works. Read them, then read the counter-claims, and go for it. Such has been done for years now, with people coming down on both sides: 1) Abanes is full of @!%^%^; and 2) I think his points are valid and arguments acceptable, and I am leaving the LDS Church because it is full of @!%^@^%.

And outside of us here, Mormons and Christians have been fighting non-stop ever since Joseph came out of the grove (supposedly) and claimed that his "man in form" God told him all the churches were wrong and the whole kit-n-kaboodle was apostate. Debates have come and gone. Books have been written. Saints have defected; Saints have stayed. There was even the great departure of high-end Saints who tried to tell the public what was going on inside the LDS community -- and faithful Mormons who wanted to stay faithful Mormons ignored them and basically, well, stayed faithful Mormons.

I believe those who are called will follow. Those who are not called, well, it won't matter what is said. So, read my books, if you want to, if you don't, then don't. If you do, then decide whether you believe what they say, or not. As for doing online comparisons, end on end posts that go nowhere, and the kind of arduous exercise recommended by Kevin, I've placed all that I haveto say in a cohesive form. And all I'd end up doing is reposting a lot of material already written in a book. For example, the whole scripture just brought up on the last page, Exodus 15, I've said all I haveto say about it and published it. So, you can believe it, or not.

R.A.

[juliann]

I think Kevin's idea is FABULOUS. What say you, Richard. Are you willing to actually participate in this exercise, or will you excuse yourself from the scrutiny it entails?

C.I.

He won't even respond to a request for citations.....but we may have some luck with this. I suggest everyone stick to this topic.

(And I should have said Abanes is out to keep the world safe from Oprah and for Rick Warren...if it matters).

[Rommelator]

There was even the great departure of high-end Saints who tried to tell the public what was going on inside the LDS community

Who are some of these "high-end Saints". And please don't say B. H. Roberts.

[rabanes]

He won't even respond to a request for citations.....but we may have some luck with this. I suggest everyone stick to this topic.

I responded to you in #240. Please answer it -- and me. And I'll respond. You're all over the place, Juliann. let's get specific. I'm willing if you're willing. And in #240, I actually answered two of your questions:

1. Regarding the "number" of scholars quoting me.

2. Whether I am "widely used."

The only remaining question I have not answered relates to naming a few "whos" and before I do that, I want you to answer my questions about what you're after, and why, and what difference it will make to you. Please answer. You are the one dancing and running.

(And I should have said Abanes is out to keep the world safe from Oprah and for Rick Warren...if it matters).

Hmm, suddenly its just a blow-off issue of "if it matters" when it comes to you totally misrepresenting my position and work on a major evangelical figure. How OUTRAGEOUS of you, Juliann. OUTRAGEOUS!!!!!

Now, you do want to answer me, or not. If not, go find out on your own a few of the scholars who have quoted me.

R.A.

[rabanes]

Who are some of these "high-end Saints". And please don't say B. H. Roberts.

I'm talking about before D&C 132 was released. Read One Nation Under Gods, Chapter 13, beginning, "We shall pull the wool over the eyes of the American people and make them swallow Mormonims, polygamy and all" (Brigham Young, 1875). And also check the section in Chapter Nine that I wrote on Joseph's introduction of polygamy for himself and others. Again, people, please use the paperback edition, which to be honest, is really the only one out there these days.

RA

[Rommelator]

Read One Nation Under Gods, Chapter 13, beginning, "We shall pull the wool over the eyes of the American people and make them swallow Mormonims, polygamy and all" (Brigham Young, 1875)

I hope you corrected this in the PB.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Brigham_Young_pul...merica%27s_eyes

[Confidential Informant]

Do you actually believe this is not ground already covered a bazillion times since Mormonism's founding?

Oh, it may have been done, but it certainly hasn't been applied by Evangelical adherents such as yourself. If it had, you'd realize that the question of "who or what is a prophet" is a good deal more complicated that your proof-texting soundbites makes it out to be.

I don't mean that in a negative way, but CI, it's been done, and done, and done. It's old ground, just to be covered again and again.

Are you that your two opuses (opi?) took a systematic approach to the question of "what is a prophet", scanning the whole of scripture to find acceptable "tests" and then applying them evenly to every major and minor prophet of both the old and new testament, and rejecting those tests which would exclude biblical prophets as being patently incorrect? Obviously, we've all missed that section.

Look, my views on both LDS history and LDS doctrine have been summed up in two major works. Read them, then read the counter-claims, and go for it. Such has been done for years now, with people coming down on both sides: 1) Abanes is full of @!%^%^; and 2) I think his points are valid and arguments acceptable, and I am leaving the LDS Church because it is full of @!%^@^%.

Well, we all know how authoritative your views are.

And outside of us here, Mormons and Christians have been fighting non-stop ever since Joseph came out of the grove (supposedly) and claimed that his "man in form" God told him all the churches were wrong and the whole kit-n-kaboodle was apostate.

Yes, and I've often wondered about this, especially since Martin Luther, Calvin, et. al., essentially said the same thing about Christendom in their day. (Of course, they were really only focusing on one church, not a thousand tiny schisms). Why is Luther's condemnation of corrupt Christianity any more controversial than Joseph's? Oh, yes, because of the way he claimed to come by his information.

Debates have come and gone. Books have been written.

Fortunately, some of them have been much better than yours. I'm sorry, but when you start extolling the virtues of Fawn Brodie, you lose all kinds of credibility.

Saints have defected;

Not nearly so many as you'd like to believe.

Saints have stayed. There was even the great departure of high-end Saints who tried to tell the public what was going on inside the LDS community -- and faithful Mormons who wanted to stay faithful Mormons ignored them and basically, well, stayed faithful Mormons.

And why do you think that is/was? I know exactly why it was. I suspect, however, that your answer is differnent than mine. Apparently, with all my education and training, etc., I'm still just too stupid to see the truth. I must be like one of he little dwarfs in the final volume of Lewis' Narina series, trapped inside my own mind with stout-hearted Richard just struggling, and failing, to enlighten me.

I believe those who are called will follow.

Yes, but I'm still curious as to who gave you the right issue the calling.

Those who are not called, well, it won't matter what is said.

And I've often stated that if Heaven is filled with a bunch of self-righteous, egotistical, gainsayers such as yourself, then I'm with Billy Joel. I'd rather laugh with the sinners.

So, read my books, if you want to, if you don't, then don't. If you do, then decide whether you believe what they say, or not. As for doing online comparisons, end on end posts that go nowhere, and the kind of arduous exercise recommended by Kevin, I've placed all that I haveto say in a cohesive form.

Let's face it, Richard. We both know that you aren't intellectually capable of maintaining a conversation on this subject with someone like Kevin Christensen. You are trying to save face, but it is very apparent what is going on here.

And all I'd end up doing is reposting a lot of material already written in a book. For example, the whole scripture just brought up on the last page, Exodus 15, I've said all I haveto say about it and published it. So, you can believe it, or not.

And the really said thing is that you honestly believe that your treatment of that verse has any scholarly merit whatsoever.

C.I.