The Shiftless, Lazy, Lying Smith Family

[juliann]

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.

Simple question followed by post after post after post setting up goofy excuses to not answer. I think it is apparent that there are no scholars who have used ONUG as a source to document their scholarship. If they had...and you were unaware...it not only means you are not reading anything but self-serving apologetic puff pieces but you don't traffic with anyone who does read scholarship.

I take it you are now going to put up post after post giving excuses why you just can't discuss what a prophet is. The more things change the more they stay the same.

[juliann]

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!!!!!

Are we really expected to keep up with your enemy list after you went after Harry Potter books? You are being called an apologist for Rick Warren. He is your God...or something. You do have to admit it is pretty funny what is being said about you on other sites. It far surpasses any negativity here. Are you seeking refuge? So many enemies...so few message boards.The invitation to Abanes:

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 ChristensenBethel Park, PA

[Calm]

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

It's been over 40 years since I've watched GA and so I have no clue who "Mr Haney" is.

Did he actually accomplish anything with all his 'work so he wouldn't have to work' approach?

With the Smiths, a heck of a lot of work was actually accomplished, not just time spent at the job, but physical, hard work as well.

And I don't see how there is anything inherently "lazy" about trying to "work smarter, not harder". After all, it made Scrooge McDuck that duck he is today (and is what my husband, the prof who teaches entrepreneurship tries to instill in his students).

[Calm]

People can work very hard at getting nothing done..."

But isn't the point from all the info about what the Smith family accomplished is that they did get something done, a whole lot of something?

[Calm]

I am quite disapointed to hear that Richard is not going to take Kevin up on his offer. It would be nice to have the topic summarized in one spot in a one on one conversation as opposed to simply reading what someone says and interpolating how he would respond to a challenge about a particular issue.

I was thinking it wouldn't be that big of a deal for Richard to do it if he has already collected the material together for his previous work. Isn't there some way you could just cut and paste your material (surely there's a computer copy for easy copying and searching?) and then all you would have to do is spend a little effort with making the transition smooth.

It could go in the Pundit's folder so you wouldn't have a lot of off topic or additional questions to deal with, but just you and Kevin, one on one.

Please, please, please.

[Bernard Gui]

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.

No, I'm simply following the admonition of turning to a random page and being able to find at least one error.

For example, your glossing over the Liberty Jail episode.

I see how you completely ignored my refernce to the Haun's Mill Massacre.

Um, we aren't talking about Haun's Mill. Why are you trying to shift the focus away from Liberty?

When you wrote the chapter "Big Trouble in Little Missouri" (kind of glib for such a tragic time, no?),

did you know the historical and doctrinal importance of the Liberty experience?

So, go write your own book.

Why, when it's so fun reading yours? You wrote it, people read it, people can

react to it. Otherwise, why write it and why are you defending it?

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........

How many of your non-Mormon fans would take the time to check your footnotes, discover the way you cherry pick quotes,

and know enough about LDS history to call you on such egregious errors as the one you made with Liberty Jail? Since it's not

their ox being gored, why should they care?

Bernard

[alter idem]

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

If the Smith family were so lazy and shiftless, why didn't they make sure the church supported them--even after Joseph died? There were more of the Smiths who remained in power in the church leadership, and if you are correct, they certainly would have continued their lazy, street angles so they were set up for life and didn't have to work but could be supported by the church membership. If they didn't take advantage of their position in the church to their monetary advantage, they were certainly not only lazy, but stupid as well. If the family was indeed lazy and street wise, shouldn't we have seen the Smiths continue to take advantage of the church and laze about while everyone else works? Shouldn't the Smiths today be living off church finances since their family had no work ethic, but only looked for opportunities to scam others and get ahead with little effort?

If you can prove the Smiths are lazy and shiftless today--having taken advantage of the LDS church for 150 years, then you might have something to back up your opinion, otherwise, I believe your comparison of Joseph and his family to Mr. Haney on Green Acres is baseless.

[rabanes]

ROMM: I hope you corrected this in the PB. http://en.fairmormon.org/Brigham_Young_pul...merica%27s_eyes.

RA: This is a very interesting quote to me. I wish FOLK were still alive. It's earliest appearance is in 1900. And what's odd is that it is actually such a lengthy quote in complete form, that it's hard for me to believe that Folk simply made up the whole thing. I would at some point continue investigating this quote.Ya know what's kind of amusing/exiting about Mormonism, is how stuff like this has popped up again and again over the years, with Mormons crying foul and decrying such things as false, fake, and fraudulent. This happened with teh whole Justice Neely thing and Joseph's "examination" in court (or trial) as a glass-looker:

In 1961 Hugh W. Nibley, professor of history and religion at Brigham Young University, explained the seriousness of the alleged trial: "You knew its immense value as a weapon against Joseph Smith if its authenticity could be establishedâ?¦. If this court record is authentic, it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith."

Another LDS researcher, Francis W. Kirkham, recognizing the disturbing implications of the report, said: "If any evidence had been in existence that Joseph Smith had used a seer stone for fraud and deception, and especially had he made this confession in a court of law as early as 1826, or four years before the Book of Mormon was printed, and this confession was in a court record, it would have been impossible for him to have organized the restored Church...."

[Then,] in 1971 Wesley P. Walters, a Presbyterian minister and researcher of Mormon history, went to New York to look for documentation of Smith's 1826 hearing. In the damp, musty basement of the jail in Norwich, New York, Mr. Walters found the Chenango county documents for 1826. In these bundles of papers were two documents that related to Smith's 1826 hearing. Mr. Walters explains: "The discovery among the 1826 Chenango County bills of two bills from the officials who participated in the arrest and trial of Joseph Smith at South Bainbridge in 1826 now confirms this story beyond question. (see

Was Joseph Smith A Magician?

).

So, one never knows what might surface as the years go by. I am quite certain that not a single Mormon dared think that the Neely Bill would surface (or the 'cough' original Book of Abraham 'cough' parchments 'cough' nothing but Egyptian Funery texts).

But at this point, I would agree with Dan Erickson -- B.A. and B.S. degrees from Brigham Young University; an M.A. from California State University, Fullerton; and an M.B.A. from California State University, San Bernardino. He is currently a Ph.D. candidate in history at Claremont Graduate University. He writes. "...perhaps fulfilling Brigham Young's reported declaration that "we shall pull the wool over the eyes of the American people and make them swallow Mormonism, polygamy and all."

So, I'll tell you what, replace that with any BY quote you'd like, then deal with the other 200,000 words in ONUG, and the mountain of evidence that stands against JS, BY, JT, and others. You might want to start with looking beyond just that single quote from the Reed Smoot Hearings, and actually read the transcript from the entire proceedings. basically, it shows that the LDS church at that point in history was pretty much being run a a cadre of liars. Sorry, it's true. Read the testimony. And then do some research about what was really going on.

R.A.

[rabanes]

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.

Okay, CI, whatever you say. It's all right, the big, bad evaneglical won't hurt you. Now sip your cocoa and loook at the nice clouds.

RA

[rabanes]

J: Simple question followed by post after post after post setting up goofy excuses to not answer.

RA: I asked you, let me try again: What difference it will make to you? Please answer. Again, you are the one dancing and running around, apparently unable/unwilling to answer this simple question. My answer will require time. YOUR answer will require nothing but a simply answer out of yoru own head. So, before I spend any more time on you, please answer me. And making bizarre conjectures ("I think it is apparent that there are no scholars who have used ONUG as a source to document their scholarship") in the face of my clear explanation of why I've not yet answered doesn't make you look very trustworthy.

J: The more things change the more they stay the same.

RA: The irony is almost too much to bear. God does have a sense of humor.

Calmoriah: I am quite disapointed to hear that Richard is not going to take Kevin up on his offer. It would be nice to have the topic summarized in one spot in a one on one conversation as opposed to simply reading what someone says and interpolating how he would respond to a challenge about a particular issue.

RA: It's not an issue of not wanting to (or being able to do this). But first, I think this whole God tihng has been done to death. Second, actually, for this to be done right at all (again), it would have to be a back-n-forth book, sort of a give-n-take discussion between a Mormon and LDS -- or some kind of point, counter-point response in one volume. Now, that would be very very enticing and intersting for a real, actual book project. But I would say get scholars/academics to do it: Dan Peterson vs. Frank Beckwith? Just a thought. That is a book I would certainly buy.

RA

[rabanes]

J: Are we really expected to keep up with your enemy list after you went after Harry Potter books?

RA: Hey, you brought it up, don't blame me for saying something so screwed up.

J: You do have to admit it is pretty funny what is being said about you on other sites. It far surpasses any negativity here.

RA: I agree. I especially like this one that you'll find MOST amusing, as will others here: "Apologist Richard Abanes: Going soft on Mormonism." This guy seems to think I am seeking to create a synthesis between Mormonism and Christian and blend the two and that I am pretty much in full support of Mormonism. What I'd REALLY like to see is you two going at it -- with him screaming about how much I'm for Mormonism, and you yelling about how I am so anti-Mormon. Goodness, it's almost to amusing to even contemplate. I'll be honest, J., I would indeed rather hang around with you guys that these dangerous Fundy cultists. They'd string me up faster than I could say, "Wait, no, i really am against polygamy."

ra

[rabanes]

Are you seeking refuge? So many enemies...so few message boards.

I'm really interested, Juliann. You've asked me this question like 3 times now? I mean, what's the deal? I truly am interested. What is your thought processes in asking me this over and again? I answered it in #225, after you asked for the first time, "Just out of curiosity, what is it you are looking for here?" I answered:

One never knows what one might find ona board like this. So I like to stop by on occasion to see what's happening, who saying/doing what, where things are heading. I've already had the following statement made to me in another thread:

"No area of study [i.e., the occult] is forbidden, nor is the application of knowledge gained therefrom. We are judged by our actions, not our interests. . . . I am a Mormon in good standing, and while I have not yet been through the temple, that is one of my immediate goals. . . . And yes, I do practice occult rituals, embrace occult beliefs, and practice magic (I hate the "k" spelling). It should also be noted that there are other Mormon occultists who have gone through the temple. There's an entire Yahoo! message group full of them."

Now THAT is fascinating. Mormons & Occultism. Sounds like a good chapter title, no?

Did you get it that time? And what I find so interesting, is that not a single person here (among all the Temple Mormons, Online Mormons, and Chapel Mormons) has sought to say anything to this guy who's apparently an LDS in good standing that says, "I do practice occult rituals, embrace occult beliefs, and practice magic." Nor has anyone said anything about his remark, It should also be noted that there are other Mormon occultists who have gone through the temple. There's an entire Yahoo! message group full of them."

So, I suppose not much has really actually changed since the days of Joseph's money-digging, magickal parchments, occult talismans, and magick rituals in the dead of night, not to mention the palmistry and fortune-telling that was rampant among early Mormons. It seems, at least by this Saint's comment, and your responses, that all is pretty much as it was back in the day (except, of course, a good peep stone is a bit more difficult to come by now).

RA

[rabanes]

OWEN MOSER

Juliann, care to send the links/quotes/source to me for where either Owen, or Moser, or both (according to you) have criticized negatively my work, either ONUG, Inside Today's Mormonism, or both? In all sincerity, I would very much be interested in seeing those statements. Otherwise, you can retract your assertion.

R.A.

[Phinehas]

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

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

C.I.

So where does the bible attribute God to being a man???

We'll start with that one.

Don't use the old "Wasn't Jesus a man"

I mean God the Father.

[rabanes]

So where does the bible attribute God to being a man??? We'll start with that one. Don't use the old "Wasn't Jesus a man" I mean God the Father.

They'll bring up Ex 15 where God is called a "man of war" on the poetic lyrics of a song.

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

They like to use song lyrics to say, "See God is a man," rather than looking at straight narrative that clearly declare, "God is not a man." Meh, what are you gonna do? Just go ahead and give the Lord wings and make him a literal blow torch, too.

RA

[thesometimesaint]

Phinehas:

Genesis 1:26-27

26

[LifeOnaPlate]

They'll bring up Ex 15 where God is called a "man of war" on the poetic lyrics of a song.

RA

That verse wouldn't have even crossed my mind.

I prefer stuff like Genesis 1, and how the early Jews and Christians understood it.

[rabanes]

Genesis 1:26-27

Answered, please see Inside Today's Mormonism, pp. 141-144, under the sub-heading, "What Does 'Image' Mean?"

RA

[thesometimesaint]

rabanes:

Your link goes to the selling of your book, not to the book itself. I really don't want to buy it at this time. Would you give us your definition of the term?

[cksalmon]

...these dangerous Fundy cultists.

This is indicative of why you aren't taken that seriously, at a scholarly level, by either side, Richard.

Goodness.

cks

[rabanes]

Your link goes to the selling of your book, not to the book itself.

1. It's the only link I have. Most books through publishers don't have the books online for free. Sorry. That's kind of the way it works. I mean I could give you a link to my main page which has excerpt, synopsis, and reviews. But that's all. People usually give links to amazon.

2. Unfortunately, I'm really not able to just post 4-5 pages of txt at a time for ever bible verse brought up here. That's not only impossible per publishing, but not even feasible logistically. Maybe borrow or go to a library, or heck, go look it up in a Christian bookstore. Then put it back on the shelf. It's only 4 pages for that one.

R.A.

[rabanes]

This is indicative of why you aren't taken that seriously, at a scholarly level, by either side, Richard.

Uhm.... that's how the Mormons refer to these kinds of people, my friend. So I was using and LDS-like reference to them as Fundies. Get it? Mormons call such people things like dangerous Fundies, haters, anti-Mormons, etc. These are same the kind of people (probably some of the same ones, in fact) who protest outside of Temples. I'm sure FAIR has a report on them, and I think even referenced me as an evangelical who stands against such hate antics. So, I think you misunderstood me. And as for not be "taken seriously," well, whatever. I think the evidence says something very different. But ya know, whatever. I have nothing to prove. If you're interested you can find out all kinds of people who take me plenty seriously. But whatever.

RA

[LeSellers]

Uhm.... that's how the mormons refer to these kinds of people, my friend. So I was using and LDS-like reference to them as Fundies. Get it?

I have been an active LDS (not "Mormon") for sixty years. I have never heard any other LDS call any one a "Fundie". I have never used the term myself. I do not know where you are getting this.

Mormons call such people things like dangeours Fundies,

Nope, never.

haters,

There are sometimes reasons for using the correct word to describe people.

anti-Momrons, etc.

For those who are anti mormon, "anti-mormon" is the best word. Although, I, nor anyone I know, have never used the term "anti-Momron".

These are same the kind of people (probably some of the same ones, on fact) who protest outside of Temples.

Evangelical" is not the same word as "Fundie". As a writer, it seems you would recognize the difference. Possibly not.

I have nothing to prove.

It seems you spend a great deal of time not proving it; successfully, I must add.

Lehi

[cksalmon]

Uhm.... that's how the Mormons refer to these kinds of people, my friend. So I was using [an] LDS-like reference to them as Fundies. Get it?

No, I don't. I was quoting you, Richard, rather than an LDS. Here:

I'll be honest, J., I would indeed rather hang around with you guys that these dangerous Fundy cultists.

If you really want to be honest, I would suggest that you clearly demarcate your I-don't-really-mean-it-I'm-just-ironically-parroting-LDS language from those statements that you actually wish to defend. Otherwise, your readers have to deal with ambiguous language, the meaning of which can shift as necessary.

I'm sure FAIR has a report on them, and I think even referenced me as an evangelical who stands against such hate antics.

Did it? I'd be interested in reading this source.

So, I think you misunderstood me.

Perhaps. But, I can hardly be blamed for not understanding what is patently ambiguous.

And as for not be "taken seriously," well, whatever. I think the evidence says something very different. But ya know, whatever. I have nothing to prove. If you're interested you can find out all kinds of people who take me plenty seriously. But whatever.

"...[W]ell, whatever...whatever...whatever."

Indeed. I actually am very interested. References?

cks

[ttribe]

Okay, CI, whatever you say. It's all right, the big, bad evaneglical won't hurt you. Now sip your cocoa and loook at the nice clouds.

RA

Further evidence that the man will only with snarky remarks when he can't handle the heat. What a joke.