The Shiftless, Lazy, Lying Smith Family

[Zakuska]

Heres another misrepresentation by Richard... trying to manufacture history...

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/onug/pg072e.html

[juliann]

I'm interested that you want to be considered sympathetic now, Richard. Your chapter headings fly in the face of objectivity. "Bloody Brigham" is one of my favorites.

Chapter 11, Bloody Brigham

Orders to Starve Gentiles?

The Quote

One Nation under Gods, page 244-245

...as the wagon-train traversed the southern route, conflict erupted between the emigrants and the Mormons, who refused to sell badly needed food and supplies to the travelers. Such conduct was unthinkable to the Baker-Fancher company. They had no idea that the refusals were in obedience to Brigham's prohibition on trading with the Gentiles.82

The Reference

Endnote 82, page 566

82. On August 2, 1857, just one month before the massacre, Brigham Young wrote to [sic] a letter to church leaders telling them to make sure that no one sold as much as "one kernal" of food to the Saints "enemies" (Brigham Young letter to Bronson and Haight, August 2, 1857, MS 1234 LDSCA).

The Problems

In attempting to identify reasons for conflict between Utah Mormons and non-Mormon emigrants and travelers, Abanes uses a letter from Brigham Young out of context and insert words into the text that don't exist. All this, without even having a complete copy of the text of the letter the he used as documentation.

When asked for a copy of the text of the letter from Young to Bronson, Abanes provided the following:

Bishop Bronson,

Dear Brother,

I wish you to notify all Presiding elders within Millard County to have the Brethren in their district to save all their grain, nor let a kernal [sic] go to waste or be sold to our enemies. And those who persist in selling grain to the gentiles, or suffer their stock to trample it into the earth I wish you to note as such. Let the Bishops get all the grain not necessary for immediate use, into their hands, if possibleâ?¦. Save your ammunition, keep your Guns and Pistols in order, and prepare yourselves in all things-particularly by living your religion-for that which may hereafter come to pass. Praying that God may add to you his blessing.

I am your Brother in Christ

Copy sent to president I.C. Haight for the Bishops and presiding Elders in and south of Iron County.

Abanes did not have a copy of the actual letter. He only had an abbreviated and incomplete copy obtained by someone else.

Here is the complete letter (Abanes didn't know the contents of the omitted portion) from the Church Archives (with the omitted portion in ellipsis, above, written in BOLD ALL CAPS, below):

I wish you to notify all Presiding elders within Millard County to have the Brethren in their districts to save all their grain; nor let a kernal [sic] go to waste or be sold to our enemies. And those who persist in selling grain to the gentiles, or suffer their stock to trample it into the earth I wish you to note as such. Let the Bishops get all the grain not necessary for immediate use, into their hands, if possible; AND BY HAVING GOOD STOREAGES, TAKE MEASURES TO PRESERVE IT AS LONG AS MAY BE NECESSARY.

LET EVERY POUND OF WOOL BE USED TO THE BEST ADVANTAGE IN MANUFACTURING COMFORTABLE CLOTHING AS IT MAY HEREAFTER BE HIGHLY IMPORTANT TO US. Save your ammunition, keep your Guns and Pistols in order, and prepare yourselves in all things-particularly by living your religion-for that which may hereafter come to pass. Praying that God may add to you his blessing.

First, the intent of Brigham's orders was not to "starve" the travelers by withholding food. There was absolutely no malice involved, using this source as a reference. The obvious purpose was conservation and having the bishops store all the grain they could and not let "one kernal" go to waste, period. Of course, the reader wouldn't get this from the selective quoting Abanes uses or without the entire context and the omitted section about storing and preserving it as long as possible.

Second, there is no mention of "food." Abanes' assertion that food was implied by Brigham, as an item not to sell or trade with the emigrants, has no basis. This letter only mentions grain, which was used for feeding livestock or could be turned into flour for obvious food purposes. It has been pointed out by others that traveling emigrants would have had no use for grain as food. They didn't have mobile wheat grinders. The grain would have only been used for livestock. Had Brigham meant food, he would have included many other food items that were in the possession of the Utah residents. Brigham's deposition in John D. Lee's trial also demonstrates that was exactly what he was talking about.

Was any counsel or instructions given by any person to the citizens of Utah not to sell grain or trade with the emigrant trains passing through Utah at that time? If so, what were those instructions and counsel?

[brigham Young] Answer -- Yes, counsel and advice were given to the citizens not to sell grain to the emigrants to feed their stock, but to let them have sufficient for themselves if they were out. The simple reason for this was that for several years our crops had been short, and the prospect was at that time that we might have trouble with the United States army, then enroute for this place, and we wanted to preserve the grain for food. The citizens of the Territory were counseled not to feed grain to their own stock. No person was ever punished or called in question for furnishing supplies to the emigrants, within my knowledge." (The Mountain Meadows Massacre by Juanita Brooks, p. 286)

Third, this conservation and preparation effort was not limited to "food" and "weapons" as Abanes would have his readers believe. In the context of the letter, wool and clothing and storage of grain are also mentioned, giving us a larger picture that malice toward the "Gentiles" was not the intent; preparing for battle with and deprivation of the "Gentiles" was not the purpose. Conservation, preparing for hard times, and the imminent Army were the purposes.

Abanes has twisted and contorted this letter to serve his purpose of placing Brigham in the light of being a ruthless governor, attempting to starve the "Gentiles," while stocking up on weapons and ammunition. The full context is totally and utterly lost in Abanes' efforts to reach his agenda, which is to cast Brigham in the worst light possible. It is simply misleading to omit the underlying reasons for Brigham's instructions.

[juliann]

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

In other words, scholars are not quoting your ground breaking book (unless they are talking about it, as Mosser and Owen do).

[rabanes]

I'm interested that you want to be considered sympathetic now, Richard. Your chapter headings fly in the face of objectivity. "Bloody Brigham" is one of my favorites.

You know, Juliann, we're never gonna get anywhere. I just gave a very good response to Bernard's little example of selective quoting. And you skipped it and just fired off another round. I answered the Allen Roberts thing, and you skipped it and fired off anotehr round. It's just gonna go round and round: answer, ignore, fire, answer, ignore fire -- how many years haev we been doing this? I just like to check in once in a while to see if things are still status quo. And, well, yeppers on that one. Sigh.

For those who want to see the truth, they see it. You, so far, are not one such person. But I have high hopes for you. You're very spirited!

RA

[rabanes]

In other words, scholars are not quoting your ground breaking book (unless they are talking about it, as Mosser and Owen do).

ROFL! You kill me. You absolutely kill me. Please, no, please, stop....I can't take it.

RA

[rabanes]

In other words, scholars are not quoting your ground breaking book

Are you talking about ONUG or Inside Today's Mormonism. And btw, yes, my book(s) have been quoted by scholars favorably and for insightful information/observations -- several. But tbh, ya know, I just didn't want to bring that up. Now, you've made me do it.

R.A.

[juliann]

Richard, believe it or not a lot has changed since you graced the LDS boards. You need to stick with people who don't require academic standards and who want to believe the worst about Mormons to be taken seriously. There is plenty to criticize in Mormonism...but there are also plenty who can do it in a knowledgable and more responsible manner. Just out of curiosity, what is it you are looking for here? You couldn't possibily think the Mormons here would think any differently about what you have done.

[juliann]

Are you talking about ONUG or Inside Today's Mormonism. And btw, yes, my book(s) have been quoted by scholars favorably and for insightful information/observations -- several. But tbh, ya know, I just didn't want to bring that up. Now, you've made me do it.

R.A.

Good. I'd really like to see who is using your book as a source. Who and in what journals and publications?

[Zakuska]

Some one is using it to dish on Prop 8...

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/cal...n-8-still-holds

[juliann]

Some one is using it to dish on Prop 8...

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/cal...n-8-still-holds

Richard has assured us that he has given Mormons sympathetic treatment so you could not possibly mean that someone would be using it to attack the church.

[Tsuzuki]

Just out of curiosity, what is it you are looking for here? You couldn't possibily think the Mormons here would think any differently about what you have done.

Harry Potter must have put a spell on him.

[Zakuska]

Julian,

Sure appears like an attack to me...

Sat, 10/18/2008 - 10:24 â?? That Mick Piobr

Ahh yes, another attempt by the LDS church to spread their hate and ignorance across the land.

The same way that they did when they were instrumental in bringing the Equal Rights(for women)Amendment down.

As far as I know, the LDS Church is the only religion that "prophesizes" the downfall of the USA government "when the Constitution is Hanging by a Thread."

Then the LDS Church will take over with a Mormon Theocracy.

They have become very excited and bold now that the Constitution is, indeed, "hanging by a thread."

I would suggest that people unfamiliar with the LDS cult should read "One Nation Under Gods" by Richard Abanes.

The Mormon Church should NOT be taxed.

The Mormon "Church" should be made illegal and its assets forfeited toward the benefit of the people that this disgusting cult has victimized.

Men have a tendency to become very arrogant and abusive when they believe that they will become gods after they die.

Us evil mormons trying to take over the world.

Funny Shawn McCraney was suggesting that about 6 months back... and then when we checked some of his source material... the discourses he was using said exactly the opposite of what he was suggesting. ROFL!

[juliann]

A must read: http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publicatio...;q=one%20nation

A Dancer/Journalist's Anti-Mormon Diatribe

Davis Bitton, and Louis Midgley

FARMS Review: Volume - 15, Issue - 1

A review of "One Nation under Gods: A History of the Mormon Church" by Richard Abanes

Provo, Utah: Maxwell Institute, 2003

The Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies (FARMS) is dismissed as "highly biased, very unreliable," and, get this, "often misleading due to its use of historical, archeological, and linguistic arguments unverifiable by persons not possessing higher education" (p. 473)

Where does one even begin....

[Confidential Informant]

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.

And what are the characteristics of the real God? The pre-Christian Jews of the Old Testament firmly believed in a corporeal being. Moses, Elija, Ezekiel, Isaiah, et. al., all believed in a God who had a body. Most of them believed he had a female consort, Ashera. Thus, by Richard's test, every prophet of the old testament had the "wrong" God and are, therefore, excluded from the Prophet Country Club.

Phineus comes up with a better one, that being that the Prophet must be inerrent in his prophecies. Problem is that by that standard, even Christ comes up short (remember when he told his Apostles that by the time they got back from his mission, his Kingdom would have arrived?). It also excludes lesser known prophets like Nathan, who assured David, in the name of God, that God wanted him to build the temple, only to be reproved by God that night for speak out of turn, and he was forced to go back to tell David it wouldn't be him.

What about the "occult" practices that Abanes harps on? Well, that clearly disqualifies Joseph of Egypt, as he regularly engaged in hydromancy.

And Phineus says, okay, let's drop Jonah. Okay, you can do that, but then you've got to explain why God did not "drop him." In fact, Jonah was a disobedient, self-righeous, racist bigot, who refused to do God's will because he didn't believe that Ninevites deserved to be saved. He was mad a God for contradicting him and he even climbed up a nearby mountain to watch the destruction. Yet, despite all that, God still held him as His Prophet. So, you go ahead and reject him, but your reasoning better be better than God's.

How about other malfeasant prophets? Shall talk about Abraham's alleged adultery, and his and Sarah's subsequent treatment of Hagar? In my line of work, their treatment of that woman would be prosecutable. But God sent her back and told her to deal with it. Yet, there is no indication that God rejected Abraham, or his works, in the least.

How about Jacob's treatment of his various wives. Hmmm, yet God still held him a His prophet.

Shall we talk about the fact that Paul was an accessory to murder?

Yet, all these men remained prophets. Therefore, it occurs to me that God's definition of a "prophet" is a good deal more complex than kindergarten level tests that Richard and others have come up with.

But you see, Richard et. al., already know this. That's why they aren't really willing to enter the actual discussion of what makes a prophet. Its a discussion that too easily exposes the weakness in the system they espouse.

C.I.

[Calm]

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),

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).

[Phinehas]

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.

And what are the characteristics of the real God? The pre-Christian Jews of the Old Testament firmly believed in a corporeal being. Moses, Elija, Ezekiel, Isaiah, et. al., all believed in a God who had a body. Most of them believed he had a female consort, Ashera. Thus, by Richard's test, every prophet of the old testament had the "wrong" God and are, therefore, excluded from the Prophet Country Club.

Phineus comes up with a better one, that being that the Prophet must be inerrent in his prophecies. Problem is that by that standard, even Christ comes up short (remember when he told his Apostles that by the time they got back from his mission, his Kingdom would have arrived?). It also excludes lesser known prophets like Nathan, who assured David, in the name of God, that God wanted him to build the temple, only to be reproved by God that night for speak out of turn, and he was forced to go back to tell David it wouldn't be him.

What about the "occult" practices that Abanes harps on? Well, that clearly disqualifies Joseph of Egypt, as he regularly engaged in hydromancy.

And Phineus says, okay, let's drop Jonah. Okay, you can do that, but then you've got to explain why God did not "drop him." In fact, Jonah was a disobedient, self-righeous, racist bigot, who refused to do God's will because he didn't believe that Ninevites deserved to be saved. He was mad a God for contradicting him and he even climbed up a nearby mountain to watch the destruction. Yet, despite all that, God still held him as His Prophet. So, you go ahead and reject him, but your reasoning better be better than God's.

How about other malfeasant prophets? Shall talk about Abraham's alleged adultery, and his and Sarah's subsequent treatment of Hagar? In my line of work, their treatment of that woman would be prosecutable. But God sent her back and told her to deal with it. Yet, there is no indication that God rejected Abraham, or his works, in the least.

How about Jacob's treatment of his various wives. Hmmm, yet God still held him a His prophet.

Shall we talk about the fact that Paul was an accessory to murder?

Yet, all these men remained prophets. Therefore, it occurs to me that God's definition of a "prophet" is a good deal more complex than kindergarten level tests that Richard and others have come up with.

But you see, Richard et. al., already know this. That's why they aren't really willing to enter the actual discussion of what makes a prophet. Its a discussion that too easily exposes the weakness in the system they espouse.

C.I.

What did all these men prophesy?

Did Paul prophesy about NOT being a murderer?

You start to cast aspersions on people for their actions instead of their prophesies

Now lets hear what you think makes a prophet.

You say God made a false prophecy?

laughable

[Calm]

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.

Bernard, the section you quoted remains the same.

As for that which Richard has referenced, here is the paragraph:

At 8 AM the following day, Smith, now a prisoner, sent a message to Far West telling them to surrender. Less than two hours later, the Mormon troops exited Far West and deposited their weapons on the ground 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". The women were sobbing and screaming, believing their husbands would be killed. But none were. General Lucas, however, did march his entire force of 2,500 soldiers through the streets of Far West. The gloating Missourians continued their mockings, derisively shouting, "Charge, Danites! Charge!" But none did. The Missouri War of 1858 was over.

[Bernard Gui]

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.

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

[Bernard Gui]

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.

Liberty Jail was a foundational event in LDS history. You brushed it off like it was a weekend at Waikiki. Not a word about

the atrocities those men suffered. ONUG is not just ANY history book. It is the true and complete history of Mormonism, documented

as meticulously as any scholarly work! Since most of your description of the Liberty experience seems to come from Brodie, I wonder

if you were even aware of what the men suffered there. She gives it a pass, too. Did you mention that the men could not stand up

straight in their cramped cell, or that they were imprisoned in winter in a stone jail with no heat? I thought not.

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?

Selective quoting? Richard...you are the master! It's your intellectual modus operandi! Take, for example, this very discussion.

I'm talking about your treatment of the Joseph Smith and others at Liberty Jail and 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!

Later in your description of the hearing at Richmond, you do not even mention the fact that any witnesses for the defense were arrested before they could testify. Brodie, your source for most of this section, was careful to point this out. How did you miss it? You portray the arrest of witnesses as

a State dragnet to round up evil doers. Brodie (245) says "the moment a Mormon witness was named, Captain Bogart hunted him down and

arrested him. The defense coud muster only six, three of them women, and these were stifled by the judge almost as soon as they began to talk."

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

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?

You are shifting focus away from your appalling omission of conditions in the Liberty Jail. By the way, was this incarceration legal?

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.

Anyone reading that chapter with half a wit would notice the obvious bias of your writing when it comes to the incarceration and hearing, and subsequent

escape from injustice. Would you please provide the documentation for your claim Smith was charged with murder? Not just a reference, but the actual

words?

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

Well, you are the one who wrote the book, no? Unless there's a naughty ghost writer we don't know about.

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Bernard, the section you quoted remains the same.

As for that which Richard has referenced, here is the paragraph:

At 8 AM the following day, Smith, now a prisoner, sent a message to Far West telling them to surrender. Less than two hours later, the Mormon troops exited Far West and deposited their weapons on the ground 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". The women were sobbing and screaming, believing their husbands would be killed. But none were. General Lucas, however, did march his entire force of 2,500 soldiers through the streets of Far West. The gloating Missourians continued their mockings, derisively shouting, "Charge, Danites! Charge!" But none did. The Missouri War of 1858 was over.

It just drips with sympathy for the Mormons. Those sobbing women! Yet the merciful Missourians spared their husbands. "Nothing to

worry about, ladies. We're just gonna lock em up for 6 months. They'll be home before you miss em. Unless we shoot em first (wink, wink,

just kidding, ladies)."

Bernard

[Bernard Gui]

Julian,

Sure appears like an attack to me...

Us evil mormons trying to take over the world.

Funny Shawn McCraney was suggesting that about 6 months back... and then when we checked some of his source material... the discourses he was using said exactly the opposite of what he was suggesting. ROFL!

So, which edition of ONUG should people read? What if they pick up the 1st edition and miss

the corrections of the 2nd? Why hasn't there been a 3rd and 4th? There are plenty more

thingys to fix up.

Bernard

[Aquilifer]

A 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

."

Ah, yes, I can just feel the charity oozing off of the selective citations, not to mention the spirit of charity that Mr. Abanes has brought to his arguments here.

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

."

Can you provide a similar review from a credentialed scholar who is disinterested in using your work as a proselytizing tool to clarify the "major errors of Mormon doctrine" so that Mormons may "reevaluate the teachings of their religion"? You must understand that I take that sort of glowing review about as seriously as you would a review by Dr. Peterson of the latest missionary guide.

[juliann]

Ah, yes, I can just feel the charity oozing off of the selective citations, not to mention the spirit of charity that Mr. Abanes has brought to his arguments here.

Can you provide a similar review from a credentialed scholar who is disinterested in using your work as a proselytizing tool to clarify the "major errors of Mormon doctrine" so that Mormons may "reevaluate the teachings of their religion"? You must understand that I take that sort of glowing review about as seriously as you would a review by Dr. Peterson of the latest missionary guide.

He said he would tell us what mainstream scholars were using his work as a source to document their own work.

[thesometimesaint]

Rabanes:

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

[rabanes]

Good. I'd really like to see who is using your book as a source. Who and in what journals and publications?

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?

You need to stick with people who don't require academic standards and who want to believe the worst about Mormons to be taken seriously.

Interesting. That's not really what the facts show, but okay, J., whatever, I'm sure it makes you feel better. So I understand. No hard feelings from me.

Just out of curiosity, what is it you are looking for here? You couldn't possibily think the Mormons here would think any differently about what you have done.

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?

Richard has assured us that he has given Mormons sympathetic treatment so you could not possibly mean that someone would be using it to attack the church.

For serious seekers of truth, if you read the previous threads where I discuss my "sympathetic treatment" (as J. sarcastically puts it), you'll see that IN CONTEXT (something that's always tripped up J.), my remark was directed at Bernard and a particular portion of ONUG that he failed to quote because it didn't serve his agenda. Take a look at Post #198:

"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..."

J, however, has sought to transfer my words here (with regard to a specific context) into some sort of lie wherein I've alleged claimed my whole view of Mormonism is "sympathetic," which to her mind also seems to equal supportive: "Richard has assured us that he has given Mormons sympathetic treatment."

Anyone else here see how this is not in any way actually connected to the reality of the situation or discussion?

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/cal...n-8-still-holds. Richard has assured us that he has given Mormons sympathetic treatment so you could not possibly mean that someone would be using it to attack the church. . . . "Sure appears like an attack to me...(Zak)

Perfect, Juliann and Zak by all means, use the words of angry Prop 8 supporters (who are about as ticked off at mormons as they can be) in order to find one of them citing my book, which in turn means that my book, somehow in reverse, is the same as whatever else these posters say on their website. Now that's an interesting way to form an opinion. Would you say that's the way "credentialed academics from real universities" work, Juliann?

Where does one even begin....

LoL. I couldn't have said it better myself, Juliann. I'm glad we agree on something.