The Shiftless, Lazy, Lying Smith Family

[cksalmon]

You don't seem to have all of your lights turned on.

Being insulted by "Batman" on a messageboard: $0.

For one thing, I know it's an anti-book... against Mormonism... which I already know isn't true.

Having my implicit thesis confirmed by ingenuous accident: $0.

Does someone really have to tell you all of this stuff?

Being quite sincerely asked by a Latter-day Saint why all this isn't just self-evident to me: priceless.

cks

[Bat-Man]

No one is going to argue that Mormonism isn't going to have to fight for respect, but this is still what you are going to have to engage:

http://www.cgu.edu/pages/5932.asp

Actually, that's optional.

The power of God's priesthood is not determined by who goes or went to BYU.

Don't put too much stock in those robes... those black robes from BYU or from any other "university"

They are not the robes that matter the most, and people can do fine without the black ones.

[rabanes]

How many pages of outrageous inaccuracies, misquotes and just plain messing with the evidence do you require before rejecting a book? Ten? Fifty? Hundred?

Juliann: Do you belong to an organization that went through that book page by page and pointed out every error for everyone to see?

RA: ROFL. Oh, I'll be getting to this in the weeks to come. I have to do something for light mental engagement. Dealing with that critique is like playing a video game.

Juliann: How many pages of outrageous inaccuracies, misquotes and just plain messing with the evidence do you require before rejecting a book?

RA: Oh yes, yes, yes. OUTRAGEOUS!!!! They are soooooo OUTRAGEOUS, Juliann. Here is one example that is just so OUTRAGEOUS!!!

FAIR pointed out the OUTRAGEOUS inaccuracy I committed in referring to Allen Roberts (a Mormon) as a "Mormon scholar" when quoting his personal opinion that LDS leaders "attempt to control depictions of the Mormon past."

OH NOES!!!!!! That is such an OUTRAGEOUS error!!???

What is the error?? Is it that no such person named Allen Roberts exists? No. Is it that Allen Roberts is not a Mormon at all!?? No. Is it that I completely misquoted his words, and Roberts never said that!!?? No.

It seems my OUTRAGGGGGGGGGOUS inaccuracy was calling him a "Mormon scholar," but not saying exactly what kind of Mormon scholar. Yep. That's it. WOW!!!!! Indeed, how outrageous!

So, in the paperback, it now reads, "According to Allen Roberts, a Mormon architectual history scholar, LDS leaders do indeed "attempt to control depictions of the Mormon past" (see paperback, p. ix). There. Feel all better? Corrected as requested!! And it changed nothing substantial whatsoever.

Outrageous??? I call that absolute silly, nit-picky, grasping at straws.

This will give sincere seekers of truth an idea of the kind of accusations and bizarre spins FAIR had to put on their so-called analysis of my book and its "OUTRAGEOUS inaccuracies, misquotes and just plain messing with the evidence."

Kind of amusing. But kind of sad, too.I'll be posting more information on this in the weeks to come. As I said, I need to relax a little.

RA

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol...um=1&id=527

Sorry, was there a single attack in here not written by a Mormon? I couldn't find one. Oh, and as for Reed's little hit-piece, I mean, that is just an embarassment to FARMS.

R.A.

[Bat-Man]

Being insulted by "Batman" on a messageboard: $0.

Heh, true. I do that for free.

Having my implicit thesis confirmed by ingenuous accident: $0.

Well. It's not.

Anti-Mormon books are not true... to those who know what really is true.

... and I'll continue to tell you that as often as you like... at no charge.

Being quite sincerely asked by a Latter-day Saint why all this isn't just self-evident to me: priceless.

It's self-evident to me only because God has told me what is true.

If God hasn't told you, either through me or one of His (other) prophets, I wouldn't expect you to know... as I said later in my post.

And, yes, once you get an answer from God to tell you what is true, it is and will be priceless.

... to you.

[Bernard Gui]

A sage apologist once remarked that one could open "ONUG" to any page at random and find

at least one error or misstatement.

So, I got out my dog-eared ONUG (granted, it is the first edition, not the PB, but perhaps someone

can peruse the PB for corrections), opened at random to page 296, and low and behold, the following

presented itself:

"Not surprisingly, many plural wives experienced depression, despair, anxiety, helplessness, abandonment,

anger, pyschosomatic illnesses, and low self-esteem. Todd Compton's In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural

Wives of Joseph Smith notes: 'Certainly polygamous marriage was accepted by nineteenth-century

Mormons as thoroughly sacred - it almost defined what was most holy to them - but its practical result,

for the woman, was solitude.'" 85

Footnote 85.

"Compton, xiv-xv. The fact that plural marriage brought great sorrow to many of the women involved can hardly

be denied. Heber C. Kimball once stated: 'there is a great deal of quarrelling in the houses, and contending

for power and authority; and the second wife is against the first, perhaps, in some instances' (Heber C. Kimball,

January 11, 1857, JOD, vol.4,178).

But when one reads Heber C. Kimball, January 11, 1857, JOD, vol.4,178, one reads the following:

"As we are members of one body, except we cut you off from us we never can rise, unless you rise. If you will cleanse the platter, and throw out the dead men's bones that corrupt it, and all wicked things, you will rise; you will not feel so much difference, only you will be calm and composed, and you will not find any wild fire in the people. They swell when they have got wild fire, until their corporations are larger, figuratively speaking, than a dozen of mine. The Holy Ghost does not make a man act in any such way.

"Why do I keep talking these things over? Because I want you to understand them and get the Spirit of God and let its peaceable influence be upon you; then you will know the spirit of men and things. Read the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and every other good book, and keep busy at some good thing or other, and stop your quarrelling. There is a great deal of quarrelling in the houses, and contending for power and authority; and the second wife is against the first wife, perhaps, in some instances. But that is done away in my family, and there is none of it in brother Brigham's, nor in brother Wells', nor in any family where they have common sense."

This quote has nothing to do with the supposed miseries suffered by women in polygamy. In fact, Bro. Kimball is careful to point out that

such things are done away in families where common sense is used. He encourages the people to seek the Spirit of God and eliminate

quarreling, power struggles, and family divisions. One should also note Kimball's words "perhaps, in some instances."

Bernard

[juliann]

Actually, that's optional.

The power of God's priesthood is not determined by who goes or went to BYU.

Don't put too much stock in those robes... those black robes from BYU or from any other "university"

They are not the robes that matter the most, and people can do fine without the black ones.

Didn't say it was, Bat man. I only said that is what our critics have to engage. They certainly aren't going to engage "God's priesthood".

And you will notice the refusal starting...NOW.

[cksalmon]

Heh, true. I do that for free.

Well. It's not.

Anti-Mormon books are not true... to those who know what really is true.

... and I'll continue to tell you that as often as you like... at no charge.

It's self-evident to me only because God has told me what is true.

If God hasn't told you, either through me or one of His (other) prophets, I wouldn't expect you to know... as I said later in my post.

And, yes, once you get an answer from God to tell you what is true, it is and will be priceless.

... to you.

If I ever get a spiritual testimony that you're one of God's prophets, unbidden though it would be, I'm afraid, I would have to express my sincere sorrow that one of God's prophets could be so patently unreflective (though apparently, to be sure, in ignorance rather than cunning or malice).

Goodness gracious.

cks

PS. The last word is on me: have at it.

[cksalmon]

Didn't say it was, Bat man. I only said that is what our critics have to engage. They certainly aren't going to engage "God's priesthood". And you will notice the refusal starting...NOW.

I don't even know what this means, Juliann, starting...NOW.

cks

A sage apologist once remarked that one could open "ONUG" to any page at random and findat least one error or misstatement.So, I got out my dog-eared ONUG (granted, it is the first edition, not the PB, but perhaps someonecan peruse the PB for corrections), opened at random to page 296, and low and behold, the followingpresented itself:"Not surprisingly, many plural wives experienced depression, despair, anxiety, helplessness, abandonment,anger, pyschosomatic illnesses, and low self-esteem. Todd Compton's In Sacred Loneliness: The PluralWives of Joseph Smith notes: 'Certainly polygamous marriage was accepted by nineteenth-centuryMormons as thoroughly sacred - it almost defined what was most holy to them - but its practical result,for the woman, was solitude.'" 85Footnote 85."Compton, xiv-xv. The fact that plural marriage brought great sorrow to many of the women involved can hardlybe denied. Heber C. Kimball once stated: 'there is a great deal of quarrelling in the houses, and contendingfor power and authority; and the second wife is against the first, perhaps, in some instances' (Heber C. Kimball,January 11, 1857, JOD, vol.4,178).But when one reads Heber C. Kimball, January 11, 1857, JOD, vol.4,178, one reads the following:"As we are members of one body, except we cut you off from us we never can rise, unless you rise. If you will cleanse the platter, and throw out the dead men's bones that corrupt it, and all wicked things, you will rise; you will not feel so much difference, only you will be calm and composed, and you will not find any wild fire in the people. They swell when they have got wild fire, until their corporations are larger, figuratively speaking, than a dozen of mine. The Holy Ghost does not make a man act in any such way."Why do I keep talking these things over? Because I want you to understand them and get the Spirit of God and let its peaceable influence be upon you; then you will know the spirit of men and things. Read the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and every other good book, and keep busy at some good thing or other, and stop your quarrelling. There is a great deal of quarrelling in the houses, and contending for power and authority; and the second wife is against the first wife, perhaps, in some instances. But that is done away in my family, and there is none of it in brother Brigham's, nor in brother Wells', nor in any family where they have common sense."This quote has nothing to do with the supposed miseries suffered by women in polygamy. In fact, Bro. Kimball is careful to point out thatsuch things are done away in families where common sense is used. He encourages the people to seek the Spirit of God and eliminatequarreling, power struggles, and family divisions. One should also note Kimball's words "perhaps, in some instances."Bernard

Hi Bernard--Haven't we been through this? Or, something very similar?

If I recall, I readily conceded your point. (Not that you're addressing me personally, here.)

Best.

cks

[Phinehas]

Here is a question (notice it is not an "LDS" question) that I have been asking for years and not one critic has answered it. I dont' even think a critic has acknowledged it. But we will see...

I answered this one but you must have missed it

My answer is prophecy

If a person makes true prophecies and doesn't get ANY wrong, you could consider them a prophet

You finally have your answer

I can't believe it took years to get an answer to this

[Zakuska]

No Richard... this would be an egregious error...

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/onug/pg175c.html

[Zakuska]

I answered this one but you must have missed it

My answer is prophecy

If a person makes true prophecies and doesn't get ANY wrong, you could consider them a prophet

You finally have your answer

I can't believe it took years to get an answer to this

You mean a prophecy like this one...?

Jonah 3: 4

4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a dayâ??s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

...and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it dnot.

Ooops! Doh!

[rabanes]

It's not as if I know nothing at all about Richard's book.For one thing, I know it's an anti-book... against Mormonism... which I already know isn't true.

And there you go.

Richard... claims there are no true prophets on the Earth today, and if Richard can claim there are no true prophets on Earth today, as there were in the past, that automatically means Richard is not a true prophet of God

There could indeed be true prophets of God on earth today. Joseph wasn't one of them.

Richard's book is a collection of his own thoughts and the thoughts of others from whom he is borrowing ideas to write about what he is writing about.

Oh, I see, you mean like the ones written by everyone at FAIR and FARMS. Awesome.

it would be a waste of my time to read his book because, for one thing, Richard is writing against something on which I know is true

Interesting, I've heard that from Branch Davidians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, and assorted other.........religious beliefe systems.

Why should anyone waste their time reading something that wasn't written by a prophet of God?

Cool, everyone here is a prophet of God. And since you've already read me here, that means I'm a prophet, too. So go ahead and read the book. And, just FYI, there's a TON of statements, remarks, observations and teachings from your own prophets and apostles -- you even get to read the original Book of Commandments stuff, the way God first gave it to Joseph, before stuff had to be deleted and changed. Coll, huh?

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.

Hmm, Mosser and Owens? Ah yes, The New Mormon Challenge, edited by Francis Beckwith (Editor), Carl Mosser (Editor), Paul Owen. Well, I couldn't get hold of either Mosser and Owen, who were listed 2nd and 3rd on the book, but I di get hold of Frank Beckwith, listed FIRST on the book as General Editor. And here's what Beckwith said about my book Inside Today's Mormonism:

"Richard Abanes is part of a generation of Christian writers who have come to recognize that responding to alternative religious movements that challenge traditional Christian theology, such as Mormonism, is not merely a matter of refuting a position. Rather, it requires a careful and thoughtful analysis that takes into consideration the richness and nuances of the positions one is critiquing. Although you may find yourself disagreeing with Abanes on certain points, no one, including believers in Mormonism, will question the charitable spirit in which he offers his case."

And this is from H. Wayne House, Distinguished Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at Faith Seminary:

"Once again Richard Abanes has produced a helpful book for the general Christian public. He combines careful research with journalistic skill to give us insight to some of the major errors of Mormon doctrine, but does so in a respectful manner so that his words may be read, hopefully, by Mormons who are willing to reevaluate the teachings of their religion. Abanes provides many interesting tidbits in his sidebars, many that I had never considered or read before. The book kept my interest throughout. I commend him for his work and believe that Christians will be greatly benefited by reading

Inside Today's Mormonism

."

Sorry, Juliann. But do Frank beckwith and H. Wayne House qualify as "credentialed academics from real universities." I would tihnk so. are you going to have the gall to disagree with these "credentialed academics from real universities." I can't imagine you would. I'll accept their opinion as ""credentialed academics from real universities" per your suggestion.

RA

[Phinehas]

You mean a prophecy like this one...?

Jonah 3: 4

4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

...and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it dnot.

Ooops! Doh!

OK...

Lets throw Jonah out then.

Which one of your prophets are you going to throw out ?

Joseph Smith made many prophecies.. Did they all come to pass?

Ooops

Guess we throw him out too.

Got any more?

[juliann]

Outrageous??? I call that absolute silly, nit-picky, grasping at straws. This will give sincere seekers of truth an idea of the kind of accusations and bizarre spins FAIR had to put on their so-called analysis of my book and its "OUTRAGEOUS inaccuracies, misquotes and just plain messing with the evidence."

And this is a very good example of how you operate, Richard. I didn't even count the number of mistakes you were caught in...it would take too much time. Yet you land on one as if no others existed. That is intellectually dishonest. As I recall, you did have to change some of your mistakes. But you only did it after you were caught very publicly. Just random picks from the above review:

Chapter 11, Bloody BrighamBrigham Says to "Cut Their Throats"The QuoteOne Nation under Gods, page 236-237Apostates certainly were viewed as the worst of sinners, although every reprobate received the same penalty. As Brigham instructed his flock: "If any miserable scoundrels come here, cut their throats.53The ReferenceEndnote 53, page 56353. Brigham Young, July 8, 1855, in JOD, vol. 2., 311.The ProblemsIn an effort to forward his agenda of depicting Brigham in a negative light, Abanes conveniently lifts half of a sentence from one of Young's statements and leave the context behind. Abanes has a knack for taking a small portion of a sentence and/or paragraph and presenting it as something it is not.Here is the more complete quote from that discourse, in context (the portion Abanes quotes is in BOLD ALL CAPS):It was asked this morning how we could obtain redress for our wrongs; I will tell you how it could be done, we could take the same law they have taken, viz., mobocracy, and IF ANY MISERABLE SCOUNDRELS COME HERE, CUT THEIR THROATS. (All the people said, Amen.) This would be rooting out that treatment to wicked men, which they had measured to innocent persons. We could meet them on their own ground, when they will not honor the law, but will kill the Prophets and destroy the innocent. They could drive the innocent from their homes, take their houses and farms, cattle and goods, and destroy men, women, and children, walking over the laws of the United States, trampling them under their feet, and not honoring a single law. Suppose I should follow the example they have shown us, and say, "Latter-day Saints, do ye likewise, and bid defiance to the whole clan of such men?So, was Brigham "instructing?" No! When the matter was put before him, regarding what should be done to those who had come and robbed, murdered and destroyed (he had just been asked that morning), Brigham said "here's how we COULD approach it," so to speak. "Suppose I should follow the example they have shown us," he says. "I will tell you how it COULD be done." These are not instructions, by any means. You have ripped the statement from its context and presented it as instructions to kill the Church's enemies, when that is not what Brigham said.

This is reprehensible. This is a lecture on how wrong it is to do these things and Richard, you have dishonestly presented it as a command to do these things.

Guess we throw him out too. Got any more?

Thank you for the illustration. There are no more anywhere at any time if we use your definition of prophet.

[Phinehas]

.Thank you for the illustration. There are no more anywhere at any time if we use your definition of prophet.

CFR

[Bernard Gui]

When one reads the ONUG section on Joseph Smith's months in the Liberty Jail, one comes away with

the feeling that it was a nice vacation from all the troubles the Saints were facing outside the jail.

Kind of a Clubliberty for old Joe and his minions.

"But instead of wasting his time [in jail], he used the endless days and nights to write several

letters to the Saints at Quincy, Illinois, and elsewhere. In these communications he denied the

charges against him..." Finally, six months after being incarcerated, the prisoners were transferred

back to Gallatin in Daviess County to stand trial."

No mention at all of this:

"The six men...[including] six-foot-six Alexander McRae - were confined in a room about fourteen by

fourteen feet in a small rock builidng with walls four feet thick. The lower floor, where the prisoners

were housed most of the time, had two small grated iron windows and a trapdoor to the floor above.

The men slept on dirty straw on an earthen floor. McRae remembered food 'so filthy that we could

not eat it until were driven to it by hunger.' When they fell to vomiting after a meal, Hyrum suspected

poison. After the attack, he said, 'We would lie some two or three days in a torpid, stupid state,

not even caring or wishing for life.' Joseph said only that the food was 'scant, uniform, and coarse.'

"Outside the windows, curiosity-seekers jeered them...The prison was a 'hell,' Hyrum wrote Edward

Partridge, 'surrounded with demonds if not those who are damned...where we are compeled to hear

nothing but blasphemos oaths and witness a scen of blasphemy and drunkenness and hypocracy and

debaucheries of evry description..."

"...Joseph wrote Emma that 'my nerve trembles from long confinement,' making it impossible to write

with a steady hand. He asked her not to 'think I am babyish, for...I bare with fortitude all my oppression.'

And the same for the others: 'Not one of us have flinched yet.'"

Richard Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, p.375.

An omission that is really inexcusable in a book that claims to reveal "the true and complete history of

Mormonism."

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Hi Bernard--Haven't we been through this? Or, something very similar?

Your point? Here we have RA himself defending his magnum opus.

You want us just to wink at it?

I have no idea what you mean.

Bernard

[rabanes]

And this is a very good example of how you operate, Richard. I didn't even count the number of mistakes you were caught in...it would take too much time. Yet you land on one as if no others existed. That is intellectually dishonest. As I recall, you did have to change some of your mistakes. But you only did it after you were caught very publicly. Just random picks from the above review: This is reprehensible. This is a lecture on how wrong it is to do these things and Richard, you have dishonestly presented it as a command to do these things.Thank you for the illustration. There are no more anywhere at any time if we use your definition of prophet.

And this is a very good example of how you operate, Juliann. I didn't even count the number of mistakes/spins/twists FAIR has been caught in with regard to that analysis...it would take too much time. Yet you accuse me of landing only one as if I was saying no others existed -- which I did not do. That is intellectually dishonest. As I recall, you were told that a number of changes made to the paperback version were a result of:

1) subjective wording that could have been taken more than one way, so it was changed in order to appease LDS critics/sensitivities;

2) unclear grammatical structure for which I tool complete responsibility and eagerly reworded to make my intended meaning/argument much clearer and more pointed for understanding;

3) some fairly serious changes that were a direct result of the editorial bungling of the editor who worked on my book -- and who afterwards was fired for his lousy performance, not only on my book but on other projects.

But you continue to claim in desperation that I only did it after I was "caught very publicly" -- as if I was trying to hide something. I"ll be dealing with these issues in the future because, to be honest, your FAIR analysis of the hardbound is actually hurting you in some very interesting ways -- and you don't even know it. Suffice it to say, I have been enjoying the many times I've had the pleasure of point out to lots of Mormons (many of them now former Mormons) where FAIR has not been completely honest, and where FAIR has shown itself to be terrifically nit-picky and petty. I thank you.

R.A.

[cksalmon]

Your point? Here we have RA himself defending his magnum opus.

You want us just to wink at it?

I have no idea what you mean.

Bernard

Hi Bernard--

Yeah, sorry. Guess it was more a personal remembrance than an ideological point.

Imagine my best robot voice here: "WILL NOT MISTAKE YOU FOR HUMAN. I AM SORRY. AWESOME-O 4000 NEEDS REST."

I must have forgotten that you're always in attack mode, here, Bernard.

That was definitely my mistake.

Best.

cks

[juliann]

Sorry, Juliann. But do Frank beckwith and H. Wayne House qualify as "credentialed academics from real universities." I would tihnk so. are you going to have the gall to disagree with these "credentialed academics from real universities." I can't imagine you would. I'll accept their opinion as ""credentialed academics from real universities" per your suggestion.

I know how the endorsement thing works. But nevertheless, I notice you weren't mentioned in the New Mormon Challenge. But perhaps he didn't have a draft of your important book. 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? 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.

[juliann]

And this is a very good example of how you operate, Juliann. I didn't even count the number of mistakes/spins/twists FAIR has been caught in with regard to that analysis...it would take too much time. Yet you accuse me of landing only one as if I was saying no others existed -- which I did not do. That is intellectually dishonest. As I recall, you were told that a number of changes made to the paperback version were a result of:

1) subjective wording that could have been taken more than one way, so it was changed in order to appease LDS critics/sensitivities;

2) unclear grammatical structure for which I tool complete responsibility and eagerly reworded to make my intended meaning/argument much clearer and more pointed for understanding;

3) some fairly serious changes that were a direct result of the editorial bungling of the editor who worked on my book -- and who afterwards was fired for his lousy performance, not only on my book but on other projects.

But you continue to claim in desperation that I only did it after I was "caught very publicly" -- as if I was trying to hide something. I"ll be dealing with these issues in the future because, to be honest, your FAIR analysis of the hardbound is actually hurting you in some very interesting ways -- and you don't even know it. Suffice it to say, I have been enjoying the many times I've had the pleasure of point out to lots of Mormons (many of them now former Mormons) where FAIR has not been completely honest, and where FAIR has shown itself to be terrifically nit-picky and petty. I thank you.

R.A.

Lame. FAIR would be the first to agree with you that we have bungled things on occasion. That tends to happen when you start out. The difference is that we correct what we can and change our ways.

I'd forgotten the "it's all my editor's fault" drama. As I recall, that editor had a completely different tale. But...if it was your editor's fault...then you are admitting there are mistakes so why do you continue to deny it?

[Zakuska]

Speaking of endorsments...

This ones dedicated to

[rabanes]

"But instead of wasting his time [in jail], he used the endless days and nights to write severalletters to the Saints at Quincy, Illinois, and elsewhere. In these communications he denied thecharges against him..." Finally, six months after being incarcerated, the prisoners were transferred back to Gallatin in Daviess County to stand trial."

First when you write a book on Mormon history, then you can choose what to include. Pick up ANY history book and you will find all kinds of things that one excludes, but that is included elsewhere in another book.

Second, I must congratulate you for a very nice job of selective quoting, Bernard. Why don't you back up about six paragraphs and start quotin there? Odd that you'd miss this whole section where I took great trouble to lat out how degrading and painful it was for the Mormons to have to surrender to their enemies. Why don't you quote where I talk about the women sobbing, and how the enemy jeered and taunted the Mormons mercilessly and intimadated them and acted like they were going to kill them all? Why don't you quote that?

Could it be because that would make me look a sympathetic of Mormons in my portrayal of the situation, and make me look fair more balanced than you or so many others want to admit? You see, to me, what was important was to show the suffering, pain, and fear of the Mormon people. And what they endured. So I took my word count leeway to mention/describe that picture. Is that okayt with you?

And as for Joseph, I was trying to show how he, despite being in jail, remained active and went about his business, not "wasting his time," but using the "endless days and nights" (that sounds like a vacation club to you?). I can see why you didn't quote more of that chapter. Anyone reading that chapter with half a desire to be fair woudl see that I treated the Mormons fairly, even devoted a whole sub-section to the dastardly deeds and horrors of Haun's Mill where defenseless Mormons were massacred.

And I am the one misrepresenting truth? I don't think so.

R.A.

[rabanes]

I'd forgotten the "it's all my editor's fault" drama. As I recall, that editor had a completely different tale. But...if it was your editor's fault...then you are admitting there are mistakes so why do you continue to deny it?

We've been through this. Sigh. I'll be putting something up on the web soon. And I'll let everyone know when it's up. And I've never denied anything. I wonder if we're talking the same language.

RA

[rabanes]

etc etc etc

Let me check my satellite/CIA tracking database of every evangelical scholar's writings, lectures, and conversations over the past several years. Juliann, sometimesyou say the darndest things. No, my ms. was not available at all when TNMC came out. I don't think I'd even started writing it yet.

RA