Jump to content

The Shiftless, Lazy, Lying Smith Family


Daniel Peterson

Recommended Posts

I highlight this very good point in the hopes that it will not be missed by the casual reader. It has broader application.

When Arminians invoke etymologies and "word studies" that I personally find ridiculous, it helps to remind myself that they are probably warlocks.

cks

I take great pride in condemning individuals who turn to their Bible for answers. Bibliomancy is a plague that needs to be cleansed from the heretical Christian world.

A plague on your housesâ?¦ a plague (wait, was that a curseâ?¦ *repenting*).

<---- Has directed the Pulsa Denoura at several people in this thread.

Link to post
ttribe: Well since I never said, or even implied, that the general membership of the Church had outgrown the peep stone thing by 1830, it appears to be you that is misrepresenting words (shocking). I said JS had at that point. My comment on the general Church membership was open ended.

RA: Unreal. Kind of amusing, actually. What I stated was that the context of our conversation was "The context of the discussion was Smith and the others growing out of that by 1830."

Condescension doesn't work too well.

I had asked BOTH questions: 1) when did Smith stop; and 2) when did others stop.

You directly mentioned 1830 in connection to Smith (now shown to be incorrect).

Actually no it wasn't shown to be "incorrect" since you haven't shown any evidence of use and all you have is JS's reference to a seer stone, which is quite different than the rest of other items you were bringing up.
And in reply to my direct question about others ("As did all the other Mormons who practiced such things as using magick, peep stones, and fortune telling? Those kinds of things?"), you simply stated: "If you're going to start painting with that broad of a brush, you better be prepared to paint people of ANY faith with the brush in 19th century America." Since you did not list a date for them, I assumed you were looking at 1830 for them as well (which as we as we all now see, and apparently you do to, that such a view would be wrong).

You assumed. The beginning of your problem.

The issue you seem to want to ignore is that Smith, contrary to what you asserted originally, didn't grow out of it by 1830. And because he never condemned such things, indeed exalted such things, his flock continued participating in such activities late into the 1800s (you implied, at least to my eyes, that they grew out of it rather quickly).

Then you completely misunderstood what I said because I intended no such restriction. I'm aware of many instances of the members of the Church doing some pretty goofy things for quite a while. You continue to fail to acknowledge that your failure to state that all such things have been abandoned is intellectually dishonest on your part.

And I noticed you said nothing about the change to the Book of Commandments to hide Cowdery's diving rod, or Lund's report of Young diving the site of the SLC temple by occult means. Any comments on those things?

Like I said, there are all manner of goofy things from that era and it had nothing to do with my argument. Now, if you could come up with something more recent, you might have a point.

Link to post
Call me crazy, but the link to the ex-mormon website does not give the Articles of Faith but an anti-Mormon parody of such.
Without doubt, that was quite the irresponsible citation, and it should be acknowledged as such. cks
Condescension doesn't work to well.
It ain't me, babe.
Link to post
What exactly were you trying to accomplish with this? "The Articles of Faith are thirteen statements that outline the more socially acceptable Mormon beliefs, usually discussed openly by Latter-day Saints when explaining Mormonism to potential converts. None of the articles deal with any doctrines that might be viewed as offensive or controversial to non-Mormons. The Articles of Faith are contained in modern LDS editions of the Pearl of Great Price, one of the Standard Works of the Mormon church. The AOF are on-line at [link to ex-mormon.com]" Call me crazy, but the link to the ex-mormon website does not give the Articles of Faith but an anti-Mormon parody of such.

:P Been there, done that. Sorry, waste of time. Homey don't play those games anymore. Think whatever you want. You will do so anyway, as will others.

By all means, take less than 100 words out of one edition of a book (later replaced with more acceptable text because I'm such a FAIR guy), and fixate on those 100 words while at the same time forgetting about the far more serious implications of nearly 200,000 words. Really smart, Romm. Why don't you quote what the paperback version reads. Go ahead. After all, we are trying to be accurate right. Don't you guys ever move on?

RA

Link to post
Been there, done that. Sorry, waste of time. Homey don't play those games anymore.

Er... sorry? Did I do something wrong? I thought that it was a fair question.

Think whatever you want. You will do so anyway, as will others.

Fawn Brodie couldn't have said it better herself.

By all means, take less than 100 words out of one edition of a book (later replaced with more acceptable text because I'm such a FAIR guy), and fixate on those 100 words while at the same time forgetting about the far more serious implications of nearly 200,000 words.

Yeah, your right, we shouldn't scrutinize what purports to be a "History of the Mormon Church" and gloss over those things.

If you did correct this, then you could have just pointed that out to me without the condescension. Help me in my ignorance and show me the updated version.

Geez... sorry that I asked.

After all, we are trying to be accurate right. Don't you guys ever move on?

Fine words coming from Richard Abanes.

Link to post
:P Been there, done that. Sorry, waste of time. Homey don't play those games anymore. Think whatever you want. You will do so anyway, as will others.

Hi Richard--

You might say, "I shouldn't have done that. Mea culpa. It was fixed in the PB." Or, perhaps you already have done. I don't know. If so, you could just reference it.

It has all the appearance of being a disengenous citation. If it was merely done in ignorance, heck, we all make mistakes. No problem. And if it were not done in ignorance, heck, we all do silly things.

"Been there, done that...waste of time" doesn't really answer the question asked.

Best.

cks

Link to post
What is it with you and your broad brush generalizations?
I thought from everyone's example here, that is what you wanted. No? :P (that was a joke, btw).

Also just fyi, a comment like that is not necessarily a broad brush, it can be used as an explicit reference to an isolated person/comment, that also functions in a plural mode to indicate a similarity with unnamed specific others who might do the same thing, but not necessarily all. Hence, not a broad brush. A broad brush would have been: "Just like all Mormons, you never move on, Romm." See the difference?

Oh, and Romm....

ROMM: Er... sorry? Did I do something wrong? I thought that it was a fair question.

RA: No, you just said something unnecessary. Do a search for the necro-thread. And also see my current response.

ROMM: Fawn Brodie couldn't have said it better herself.

RA: I take that as a very high compliment.

ROMM: we shouldn't scrutinize what purports to be a "History of the Mormon Church" and gloss over those things.

RA: 1. Never said you shouldn't scrutinize. 2. Never said things should be glossed over. But there are certain things that have been: 1) resolved; and 2) answered. And what is amazing, as I still must observe, is how you will scrutinize a gnat under a microscope and fail to see the elephant standing in the room next to you. And in the case of Mormonism, dare I say, several elephants.

ROMM: Geez... sorry that I asked.

RA: If you were being serious and didn't know. Then, I do, in all sincerity apologize. If you do not have the paperback version. You should get it. A number of changes have been made. I don't think any were MAJOR in that serious points of correction were made (except the phrasing and restructuring of 2 paragraphs or so in one area where the edits to the original manuscript were screwed in the hardbound). So, again, if you had no idea of the revision, I apologize. ALL of us -- evangelical and Mormon -- have had very, very, bad and hurtful experiences with people of the other camp. If I put that on you, I'm sorry. ;) Forgive me.

R.A.

Link to post
RAbanes

Been there, done that. Sorry, waste of time. Homey don't play those games anymore. Think whatever you want. You will do so anyway, as will others.

By all means, take less than 100 words out of one edition of a book (later replaced with more acceptable text because I'm such a FAIR guy), and fixate on those 100 words while at the same time forgetting about the far more serious implications of nearly 200,000 words. Really smart, Romm. Why don't you quote what the paperback version reads. Go ahead. After all, we are trying to be accurate right. Don't you guys ever move on?

Talk about the color of the kettle. Sounds like you might be a little bitter, why? well there is this from FAIR my quotes in red;

Unfortunately, experience has proven that anything Sandra Tanner endorses as being "accurate" about the Mormon Church is bound to be, in the final evaluation, anything but accurate.

(on end notes) The mere use of scholarly apparatus in no way ensures the reliability of the information provided. Of course, authors such as Abanes are convinced that the sheer volume of endnotes will awe the average reader and convince him or her that the conclusions being presented are indeed factual. Fortunately, his sources can be checked. [Ouch that must of hurt]

As you explore this information, we are sure that you will begin to recognize Abanes as a "surrealist" writer, who is bent on doing with words exactly what Picasso did with pigments--present a twisted and surreal view of reality. In this case, the reality of normal people living normal lives and seeking to worship and serve God to the best of their ability. [double ouch]

Not only does Abanes choose the exact quote the Tanners used, but his endnote contains the same typographical error, a comma after the "L" in Morris L. Reynolds' name, as cited by the Tanners on their Web site. There is little doubt that he "borrowed" this quote from this Web site, and that he likely did not view the original document or a copy thereof. In light of this error, it is easy to wonder if Richard Abanes actually read the quote at all, or if he just cut and pasted it into his book. Such behavior exposes him as a lazy researcher.[wow hate it when that happens]

Link to post
I thought from everyone's example here, that is what you wanted. No? :P (that was a joke, btw).

Also just fyi, a comment like that is not necessarily a broad brush, it can be used as an explicit reference to an isolated person/comment, that also functions in a plural mode to indicate a similarity with unnamed specific others who might do the same thing, but not necessarily all. Hence, not a broad brush. A broad brush would have been: "Just like all Mormons, you never move on, Romm." See the difference?

Spare me the arrogant lesson in grammar. You said (in various posts in this thread), the following:

Don't you guys ever move on?
tsk tsk tsk....nothing changes with you guys. Too bad.

In neither case did you specify any individual, or even a small group.

Link to post
Let me be more precise (btw, I just love the way you guys mince and dice words when its convenient, but enjoy using great latitude when using other terms that serve your own purposes).

Perhaps you do. I, OTOH, rather disdain the way you make brazenly counterfactual assertions, and then when challenged, appeal to some private and previously undisclosed definitions of unambiguous terms.

To say that some person P was "convicted" of some offense O means that a court tried P for O and returned a guilty verdict. It does not mean--and has never meant--that P was acquitted of O, but that some officious, self-appointed judge decided that P was guilty anyway.

During this preliminary hearing (then called an "examination"), Joseph admitted that he possessed "a certain stone" that he occasionally used to determine the location of hidden treasures in the earth. The court record continues:

No it doesn't. Pardon me for interrupting, but as you cannot possibly claim not to know, the document in question is not a court record.

"[H]e professed to tell in this manner where gold mines were a distance under ground, and had looked for Mr. Stowell several times, and had informed him where he could find these treasures." (This was confirmed by testimony from Josiah Stowell, Arad Stowell, McCaster, and Jonathan Thomson.) For their testimony, see the transcript of the examination, "State of New York v. Joseph Smith."

You mean the article published in Shaff-Herzog.

Smith was given "Leg Bail" -- basically, get out of town and never return (probably because Smith was only a 20-year-old kid). You'll want to see the recollections of A.W. Benton (a Bainbridge resident), and Joel K. Noble (Justice of the Peace).

Yes, I am aware of these old gossips. The fact, however, is that Joseph did not immediately "get out of town" but left when he was good and ready; and he certainly did "return" just a few months later. Why wasn't he arrested for breaking his bail conditions during the time he was staying with the Hales, shortly after his marriage?

We have the documentation, which you are well aware of, wherein that examination labels Smith the "Glass-Looker."

Which has no probative value, since it was entered not in the column describe the charges, but directly under his name, as an identifying marker.

The origins of Mormonism are steeped in the occult and magickal workings.

Hysterical, fanatical rubbish.

You are a man born out of your time, Richard. You really belong in Massachusetts, in the late 17th century.

Are you SERIOUSLY telling me Joseph never used peep stones in the occult manner popular in that day to hunt for buried treasures? Seriously? or are you, as I have noted before, fixating on my gnat (use of the word "convicted"), while ignoring the great big elephant of Smith's occult practices?

To actual Christians, the bearing of false witness is more than a mere "gnat."

While the "elephant" is a creature of smoke and mirrors, and you, sir, are the prestidigitator.

The issue you seem to want to ignore is that Smith, contrary to what you asserted originally, didn't grow out of it by 1830. And because he never condemned such things, indeed exalted such things, his flock continued participating in such activities late into the 1800s (you implied, at least to my eyes, that they grew out of it rather quickly).

While you, on the other hand, have yet to produce a shred of evidence in support of your outrageous claims, to wit:

1) That "madgjickk," or whatever your pretentious, pseudoscholarly misspelling is these days, actually defines anything at all.

2) That "madgjickkle" practices of any kind were more common among Latter-day Saints than among socioeconomically similar groupings of their non-LDS contemporaries, including Bayaptiyusts. And I mean, ever.

3) That the biblical prooftexts you have dredged up in your witch-hunting zealotry actually contemplate any folk superstitions that Joseph or any of his contemporaries may have been familiar with.

Can you support them?

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to post
Perhaps you do. I, OTOH, rather disdain the way you make brazenly counterfactual assertions, and then when challenged, appeal to some private and previously undisclosed definitions of unambiguous terms.

To say that some person P was "convicted" of some offense O means that a court tried P for O and returned a guilty verdict. It does not mean--and has never meant--that P was acquitted of O, but that some officious, self-appointed judge decided that P was guilty anyway.

No it doesn't. Pardon me for interrupting, but as you cannot possibly claim not to know, the document in question is not a court record.

You mean the article published in Shaff-Herzog.

Yes, I am aware of these old gossips. The fact, however, is that Joseph did not immediately "get out of town" but left when he was good and ready; and he certainly did "return" just a few months later. Why wasn't he arrested for breaking his bail conditions during the time he was staying with the Hales, shortly after his marriage?

Which has no probative value, since it was entered not in the column describe the charges, but directly under his name, as an identifying marker.

Hysterical, fanatical rubbish.

You are a man born out of your time, Richard. You really belong in Massachusetts, in the late 17th century.

To actual Christians, the bearing of false witness is more than a mere "gnat."

While the "elephant" is a creature of smoke and mirrors, and you, sir, are the prestidigitator.

While you, on the other hand, have yet to produce a shred of evidence in support of your outrageous claims, to wit:

1) That "madgjickk," or whatever your pretentious, pseudoscholarly misspelling is these days, actually defines anything at all.

2) That "madgjickkle" practices of any kind were more common among Latter-day Saints than among socioeconomically similar groupings of their non-LDS contemporaries, including Bayaptiyusts. And I mean, ever.

3) That the biblical prooftexts you have dredged up in your witch-hunting zealotry actually contemplate any folk superstitions that Joseph or any of his contemporaries may have been familiar with.

Can you support them?

Regards,

Pahoran

Silly Pahoran sure he can support them easy cheesy japaneesy by refering to the Tanners Mormonism--Shadow or Reality and their fine research :P

Link to post
Not only does Abanes choose the exact quote the Tanners used, but his endnote contains the same typographical error, a comma after the "L" in Morris L. Reynolds' name, as cited by the Tanners on their Web site. There is little doubt that he "borrowed" this quote from this Web site, and that he likely did not view the original document or a copy thereof. In light of this error, it is easy to wonder if Richard Abanes actually read the quote at all, or if he just cut and pasted it into his book. Such behavior exposes him as a lazy researcher.

Let's just take one of these, shall we? (FAIR's analysis of ONUG, btw, is a joke -- and a desperate one at that, imho.)

This particular criticism is just about a footnote in my book. And it has nothing to do with either the accuracy or legitimacy of the quote in question -- or the point that is made in the main text of my book. And that main point is found on p. 408:

"In response to the discrepancies [in the D&C], famous Mormon scholar Hugh Nibley blithely stated: "Revelations have been revised whenever necessary. That is the nice thing about revelation -- it is strictly open ended."

The endnote to this reads: "Hugh Nibley, letter to Morris L. Reynolds, May 12, 1966. Quoted in Jerald Tanner and Sandra Tanner, Case Against Mormonism (SLC: ULM, 1967), vol. 1, 132, online at http://[snip]. This three volume work is available for purchase online from ULM...."

Does FAIR complain that the actual quote is NOT from Nibley!? Does FAIR state that I use the Nibley quote out of context?! Does FAIR claim that such a letter never existed!?

NO, they come out swinging with, "This is not a citation; it is an advertisement. This kind of thing has no place in the endnotes of any book other than a catalog, much less a volume that claims to be a scholarly historical work."

Oh really? So basically, they didn't like the fact that I quoted a letter cited by Sandra Tanner, and decided to give readers purchasing information on how to get the resources in which that citation appears. :crazy: Gee, that is terrible. We might as well throw out the entire point I was making over that one.

As for the "L," is FAIR seriously saying to discount the quote because typing of the source includes a comma after the "L" instead of a period? Hmmm, and from this they draw some kind of bizarre conclusion, which STILL does not invalidate the quote!? Interesting. Can anyone else see that this actually has no bearing whatsoever on the quote, its accuracy, or the point I made in the text main body?

The best FAIR can do is: "There is little doubt that he 'borrowed' this quote from this Web site, and that he likely did not view the original document or a copy thereof. In light of this error, it is easy to wonder if Richard Abanes actually read the quote at all, or if he just cut and pasted it into his book. Such behavior exposes him as a lazy researcher. Without the entire letter written by Brother Nibley, or a fair portion of it, it is impossible to tell if Abanes has drawn the quote out of context, or if he merely parrots the Tanners doing so."

That's it? Oh goodness. IN other words, they don't have the letter. And they have nothing but a hopeful speculation. So, what we really have boils down to this:

1. They didn't like me offering information on how to purchase Tanenr materials (undertsandable); and

2. My citation in the hardbound included a comma after the "L" in Michael L. Reynolds.

Ooooh!!! Wooooow!! You got me!! :P I better just get rid of the whole 650-page book. (elephant, elephant, elephant -- guys look at the elephant!).

Two facts.

1. Tanner sent me a copy of the letter. I read it. The issue was revelation.

2. I copied the source listed "Michael L. Reynolds" because it was already typed and saved time. My editor (a real sorry excuse for an editor), didn't catch the comma after the "L."

One of my favorite quotes from FAIR: "All he has shown is that there were indeed revisions made to the Book of Commandments when it became the Doctrine & Covenants. Big deal."

Oh my. ;) Big deal, indeed.

R.A.

Link to post

P: brazenly counterfactual assertions

RA: Oh, brazenly, even. Cool.

P: To say that some person P was "convicted" of some offense O ....

RA: Oh, is that all? Awesome. Okay, here......Smith was never "convicted" in the technical sense of the word, but was arraigned for glass-looking and through that "examination" was shown to be a glass-looker by the testimony of even friendly witnesses. However, in lenincy, the judge gave 20-year-old Smith leg bail and told him to get out of town, after which time he continued to practice the occult, magick, glass-looking, treasure hunting, and founded a religion closely connected to such practices and drew occult followers who also practed such things for decades thereafter......

Better? Now, deal with these facts (see the elephant yet?).

P: You mean the article published in Shaff-Herzog.

RA: Please refer to both Tuttle's and Marshall's.

P: You are a man born out of your time, Richard. You really belong in Massachusetts, in the late 17th century.

RA: LoL. Good one. I like that one. I think that's ad hominum.

P: While the "elephant" is a creature of smoke and mirrors, and you, sir, are the prestidigitator.

RA: Ohhhh, verrrry creative. I like that one even better.

P: [ongoing rant]

RA: Dear P, calm yourself. It's not good for the old ticker.

peace bro,

RA

calmmmmmmm...... :P

Link to post

Well, his tendency to ignore contrary evidence and arguments, to be unaware of the range of available scholarship, to come to unsupported conclusions, to make naked assertions sans sufficient evidence, and to avoid making an original, substantive statement of his own doesn't seem limited to his "scholarly" works, but seems to be a conversational habit as well, eh?

Link to post
Well, his tendency to ignore contrary evidence and arguments, to be unaware of the range of available scholarship, to come to unsupported conclusions, to make naked assertions sans sufficient evidence, and to avoid making an original, substantive statement of his own doesn't seem limited to his "scholarly" works, but seems to be a conversational habit as well, eh?

Yes. Glibly using slang and sarcasm in an effort to make his opponent look like a frothing at the mouth psychopath seems to be his response to issues he'd rather not address.

Link to post
CKS, see my apologies to Romm.....

RA

Hi Richard--

Well, okay, if the correction in PB is the apology...? I suppose I'm tracking with you, but merely editing out an egregious error (which it was, in my mind) is not, to my mind, constitutive of an apology.

Your apology seems essentially to be, "I'm sorry if you weren't aware that this was changed in PB."

Meh. This is more like forgiving someone else for their ignorance of your unannounced PB edit than apologizing for a plainly bad citation in HB. And that's the issue at stake here, frankly. It's not really an apology to say, "I'm sorry you didn't know Y," when the complainant's question actually involves X.

Best.

cks

Link to post
Fine words coming from Richard Abanes.

Telling, isnt it?

Link to post
...seems to be his response to issues he'd rather not address.

Yes, that's exactly why since 8:45 this morning, I've posted 13 messages and several of them were very long, complete with quotes from primary reference sources (both modern & 19th century), detailed explanations of my views, web links, and even a response to one of FAIR's critical remarks that another poster threw at me as so-called evidence that my research/work is highly unreliable. Right, all because I only use conversational tactics to divert attention away from issues I'd rather not address. Uh huh. You got me. :P

R.A.

Link to post
Yes, that's exactly why since 8:45 this morning, I've posted 13 messages and several of them were very long, complete with quotes from primary reference sources (both modern & 19th century), detailed explanations of my views, web links, and even a response to one of FAIR's critical remarks that another poster threw at me as so-called evidence that my research/work is highly unreliable. Right, all because I only use conversational tactics to divert attention away from issues I'd rather not address. Uh huh. You got me. :P

R.A.

Yes, actually it is. Because you do respond to issues you feel comfortable with and ignore others. Why would that be? And, let's not trot out the "I don't have time thing"...none of us have "time".

Link to post
... One of my favorite quotes from FAIR: "All he has shown is that there were indeed revisions made to the Book of Commandments when it became the Doctrine & Covenants. Big deal."

Oh my. :P Big deal, indeed.

R.A.

Its no big deal to me but obviously by a half page response its a big deal to you.

One might ask why isn't revisions in the Doctrine & Covenants a big deal to me (rhetorical)? As I study scripture I am able to recognise different styles for example the phraseology of Ezekiel from Jeremiah, or John from Peter or Peter from Paul etc. As one scholar wrote "If God's words are revealed to each prophet what style could there be but God's style? How could we account for individual differences in the writings of the various books of scripture?" God uses language of the people copied or reiterated by imperfect people (Gods language of course would be pristine perfect).

There have been and will be apostasy because people expect perfection. People have apostatized from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. One did because because Joseph Smith misspelled his name when it was written in a revelation. Joseph himself said that Oliver Cowdery was assisting with the punctuation and spelling bears out that Joseph Smith's grammar needed revision and was not that of God's.

Was not the commandments "given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding?" Or from an example from the Book of Mormon we find; Moroni is quoted as saying:

And then shall ye know that I have seen Jesus, and that he hath talked with me face to face, and that he told me in plain humility, even as a man telleth another in mine own language, concerning these things; and only a few have I written, because of my weakness in writing.

Anijen ~ this is why no big deal

Link to post

Richard:

I do not own the PB. I have only skimmed through the HB edition at my local library once or twice and read some of the reviews of your (I guess HB version) book from Mormon and non-Mormon sources. One of them was the FAIR website review. When I read the little incident with the AOF citation, I really was taken aback.

If I get a chance, I will try to pick up the PB version and see how the two compare in terms of accuracy, citations, etc.

Link to post
Richard:

I do not own the PB. I have only skimmed through the HB edition at my local library once or twice and read some of the reviews of your (I guess HB version) book from Mormon and non-Mormon sources. One of them was the FAIR website review. When I read the little incident with the AOF citation, I really was taken aback.

If I get a chance, I will try to pick up the PB version and see how the two compare in terms of accuracy, citations, etc.

Cool.

RA

Link to post

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...