The Great Church History Cover-up

[WalkerW]

Okay, lets see what their experiences were then. . .

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

Some of the experiences are actually mentioned in the link.

Elizabeth Whitney wrote this in regards to her daughter Sarah:

"

[Zakuska]

I remember addressing all of this already in this thread.

What? That you don't beleive in the bible either?

Not beleiving in the Bible is removing Joseph Smith from his context and is commiting the agument from silence falacy once again.

Since its the bible that defines what a prophet is and since bible prophets did worse things than anything Joseph Smith ever did. None of these can be used as an excuse for dismissing JS as a prophet.

[WalkerW]

But discussing polygamy is rather pointless if you don't believe in revelation or don't consider it a possibility.

[Redefined]

What? That you don't beleive in the bible either?

Not beleiving in the Bible is removing Joseph Smith from his context and is commiting the agument from silence falacy once again.

Since its the bible that defines what a prophet is and since bible prophets did worse things than anything Joseph Smith ever did. None of these can be used as an excuse for dismissing JS as a prophet.

I was pointing out that we are going around in circles because it would have started us right back at post #507.

[Redefined]

But discussing polygamy is rather pointless if you don't believe in revelation or don't consider it a possibility.

Yep. Not compelling evidence.

[WalkerW]

Yep. Not compelling evidence.

However, it has more evidence than arguing from silence that Joseph Smith was a pervert and dragged women kicking and screaming into his harem.

The most you could say based on the accounts is they at least believed they had all received revelations. But that would make the realistic nature of the revelation debatable, not Smith's intentions.

[Redefined]

However, it has more evidence than arguing from silence that Joseph Smith was a pervert and dragged women kicking and screaming into his harem.

The most you could say based on the accounts is they at least believed they had all received revelations. But that would make the realistic nature of the revelation debatable, not Smith's intentions.

Yes, in the least, we can say that they believed Joseph Smith when he told them he had received revelations. . . not surprising since they sustained him as a Prophet of God anyway.

[WalkerW]

Yes, in the least, we can say that they believed Joseph Smith when he told them he had received revelations

Actually, many of them (including men) questioned the prophet. Many left the church over it. But, eventually, these women did believe Joseph had received revelation because they had received...wait for it...PERSONAL (that word that continues to be mysteriously overlooked by Redefined) revelations, visions, and visitations.

So, let us correct your sentence to what it should actually say:

Yes, in the least, we can say that they believed Joseph Smith received revelations and that they too had received similar revelations.

. . . not surprising since they sustained him as a Prophet of God anyway.

I certainly know I expect heavenly visions and angelic visitations when I sustain the prophet...

[Redefined]

Actually, many of them (including men) questioned the prophet. Many left the church over it. But, eventually, these women did believe Joseph had received revelation because they had received...wait for it...PERSONAL (that word that continues to be mysteriously overlooked by Redefined) revelations, visions, and visitations.

So, let us correct your sentence to what it should actually say:

Yes, in the least, we can say that they believed Joseph Smith received revelations and that they too had received similar revelations.

I certainly know I expect heavenly visions and angelic visitations when I sustain the prophet...

I didn't say they expected to recieve "heavenly visions and angelic visitations" because they sustained the prophet. . . you forced that puzzle piece in where it didn't belong. Why would it be a stretch to think that most would believe Joseph Smith when he said that God gave him a revelation? He was the Prophet of their church. "Personal" is not overlooked by me. There are just too many different factors than can account for "personal experience", therefore, it is unconvincing. What I see in the experiences of these women is Joseph Smith in the very least telling them it was a commandment of God. . . as if he were just taking orders from God. I don't see that it gives these women much of a choice. Either your for God or your against God right?

[jwhitlock]

No, it shouldn't to a LDS members that feel the "spirit" trumps all when it comes to truth. This "spirit" cannot be used as evidence, because anyone could claim "spirit". . . if this were the case. . . and then it gets into the bickering of well my spirit is right and yours is wrong. . . etc, etc.

I tire of people coming here on the board, having things explained to them, and then turning right around and misrepresenting them again.

It's been explained to you what the Spirit is all about. That you choose to disregard it in your single-minded pursuit of "proving" that Joseph was dishonest and lied is dishonest in itself.

When you're ready to actually have a discussion, rather than brushing aside and misrepresenting what you're told as you march to your inevitable "conclusion", I may participate. Until then, it's not worth the further effort to try to instruct you - as the rest of the posts in this thread have shown.

Have a good time with your rationalizations.

[WalkerW]

I didn't say they expected to recieve "heavenly visions and angelic visitations" because they sustained the prophet. . . you forced that puzzle piece in where it didn't belong.

I realize that. I'm glad you did. The puzzle piece didn't belong because you hadn't created the right context. That is why it was sarcastically put in there.

Why would it be a stretch to think that most would believe Joseph Smith when he said that God gave him a revelation?

Where did I say it was a stretch? I was pointing out that you continue to phrase it as if they were merely doing what he told them to without mentioning their own personal experiences.

"Personal" is not overlooked by me.

Yet, in all your posts, you never accounted for it. You continued to say things like...

"Yes, in the least, we can say that they believed Joseph Smith when he told them he had received revelations. . . not surprising since they sustained him as a Prophet of God anyway."

"If I were a faithful believer of a church, and the prophet of that church recieved a commandment of God to enter into Polygamy, if that prophet came to me and asked me to be one of his polygamous wives, why would I assume that this wasn't God's will?"

"Their willingness to follow commandments speaks nothing of Joseph Smith's possible intentions."

You tried to paint the picture that he simply commanded them and they obeyed. Unfortunately for you and your theory, these women testified that they had had an experience that convinced them of the truth. The records show that something drastically had changed their views towards polygamy independent of the prophet. Yet, you dismiss this with "There are just too many different factors than can account for "personal experience", therefore, it is unconvincing." Forgive me if I find your theory that lacks historical support unconvincing.

There are just too many different factors than can account for "personal experience", therefore, it is unconvincing.

This is irrelevant. We aren't arguing whether or not the manifestations were real. The point is they all believed they had received manifestations. Therefore, it wasn't just pervert Joseph saying "Be my wife" and them responding "Ok, prophet, sir." Something independent of the prophet had convinced them.

I don't see that it gives these women much of a choice.

But they did, which one of the quotes I provided demonstrates. He always told them to seek the answer from God. You are leaving out their experiences in favor of your conclusion that has absolutely no evidence.

[Redefined]

I tire of people coming here on the board, having things explained to them, and then turning right around and misrepresenting them again.

It's been explained to you what the Spirit is all about. That you choose to disregard it in your single-minded pursuit of "proving" that Joseph was dishonest and lied is dishonest in itself.

When you're ready to actually have a discussion, rather than brushing aside and misrepresenting what you're told as you march to your inevitable "conclusion", I may participate. Until then, it's not worth the further effort to try to instruct you - as the rest of the posts in this thread have shown.

Have a good time with your rationalizations.

Great I wouldn't want you to overexert yourself.

Have a good time with your rationalizations.

And you yours!

[Redefined]

I realize that. I'm glad you did. The puzzle piece didn't belong because you hadn't created the right context. That is why it was sarcastically put in there.

Where did I say it was a stretch? I was pointing out that you continue to phrase it as if they were merely doing what he told them to without mentioning their own personal experiences.

Yet, in all your posts, you never accounted for it. You continued to say things like...

"Yes, in the least, we can say that they believed Joseph Smith when he told them he had received revelations. . . not surprising since they sustained him as a Prophet of God anyway."

"If I were a faithful believer of a church, and the prophet of that church recieved a commandment of God to enter into Polygamy, if that prophet came to me and asked me to be one of his polygamous wives, why would I assume that this wasn't God's will?"

"Their willingness to follow commandments speaks nothing of Joseph Smith's possible intentions."

You tried to paint the picture that he simply commanded them and they obeyed. Unfortunately for you and your theory, these women testified that they had had an experience that convinced them of the truth. The records show that something drastically had changed their views towards polygamy independent of the prophet. Yet, you dismiss this with "There are just too many different factors than can account for "personal experience", therefore, it is unconvincing." Forgive me if I find your theory that lacks historical support unconvincing.

This is irrelevant. We aren't arguing whether or not the manifestations were real. The point is they all believed they had received manifestations. Therefore, it wasn't just pervert Joseph saying "Be my wife" and them responding "Ok, prophet, sir." Something independent of the prophet had convinced them.

But they did, which one of the quotes I provided demonstrates. He always told them to seek the answer from God. You are leaving out their experiences in favor of your conclusion that has absolutely no evidence.

It's gets frustrating to write out a very thorough response to have it lost when going to submit it the page errors.

So here is the gist.

My ""Personal" is not overlooked by me." statement needs to be followed by the following sentence in order to keep it in context.

""Personal" is not overlooked by me. There are just too many different factors than can account for "personal experience", therefore, it is unconvincing."

Because that second sentence is my answer to all the arguments you posed to my first sentence.

Joseph Smith painted the picture himself. . . reading through the experiences here http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/ has given me a picture of Joseph Smith using his position and authority to get what he wanted. It didn't need a whole lot of convincing when it is said to faithful women that God is commanding it. Either follow God or not is the situation these women found themselves in. A lot of Faith was being practiced.

Can you please back up your claim that all these women believed they had recieved manifestations. If you are meaning it was manifested by Joseph Smith himself, then I agree.

[WalkerW]

Because that second sentence is my answer to all the arguments you posed to my first sentence.

I realize your "reasoning." I'm merely pointing out that in order to entertain your theory, you dismiss historical accounts. The point is that something independent of Joseph Smith convinced these women to participate in polygamy.

Can you please back up your claim that all these women believed they had recieved manifestations. If you are meaning it was manifested by Joseph Smith himself, then I agree.

Did you read what I posted? I gave you several personal accounts from these women demonstrating that they had received a spiritual manifestation that polygamy was true.

[Redefined]

I realize your "reasoning." I'm merely pointing out that in order to entertain your theory, you dismiss historical accounts. The point is that something independent of Joseph Smith convinced these women to participate in polygamy.

Did you read what I posted? I gave you several personal accounts from these women demonstrating that they had received a spiritual manifestation that polygamy was true.

You had said "all" believed they had recieved a manifestation. As to those that actually did believe they had recieved a spiritual confirmation which were what 1 or 2 of them? Their "spiritual experiences" do not prove Joseph Smith had noble intentions. For there are so many factors behind "spiritual experiences" that one cannot say what the source of these "experiences" were. I am not one that is willing to just take someone's word that their "spiritual experience"= "truth". I also am not one to take someone's word that their own "spiritual experiences" prove that another's "spiritual experiences" were true.

Because, then person A can claim they had a "spiritual experience" that confirms that bigfoot is real, person B can claim that they know bigfoot is real because they had a "spiritual experience" that told them person A was telling the truth. While at the same time all over the world People XYandZ have had "spiritual experiences" which confirm to them that bigfoot is not real.

We can argue back and forth about whose "spiritual experiences" are true, or we can take that out of the equation because it doesn't contribute to finding the answer.

[thews]

I tire of people coming here on the board, having things explained to them, and then turning right around and misrepresenting them again.

You know what I tire of, people claiming things and not responding to questions they have no answer for. Regarding whether or not Joseph Smith consummated his plural marriages, we know this:

http://mormonthink.com/polyweb.htm#sex

Per the D&C, the purpose of marriage is to allow couples to have sex and produce children without committing cardinal sin. These women could just as easily been taken care of by the Mormon community without marriage to Smith or any of the other men practicing polygamy at the time. The D&C states that the purpose of polygamy was to produce children - not take care of women. It is a little difficult to produce children without having sex.

D&C 132:63: ...for they [the virgins referred to earlier in the verse and in verses 61 and 62] are given unto him TO MULTIPLY AND REPLENISH THE EARTH, according to my commandment, and to fulfill the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, THAT THEY MAY BEAR THE SOULS OF MEN; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified. (Caps added)

and this...

http://mormonthink.com/polyweb.htm#sex

Oliver Cowdery's comments

The people closest to Smith while he lived also condemned his behavior. Oliver Cowdery referred to Joseph's affair with Fanny Alger as "a dirty, nasty, filthy affair" (Letter written by Oliver Cowdery and recorded by his brother Warren Cowdery; see photograph in The Mormon Kingdom, vol. 1, page 27)

Mother Sessions

On 12 October 1905, Stake President Angus M. Cannon discussed this incident with Joseph Smith, III, and his son Frederick. In response to the elder Smith's inquiry, "Where is the issue in evidence of my father's having married plural wives," Cannon replied:

"I will now refer you to one case where it was said by the girl's grandmother that your father [Joseph Smith] has a daughter born of a plural wife. The girl's grandmother was Mother Sessions .... Aunt Patty Sessions, asserts that the girl was born within the time after your father was said to have taken the mother. And I want you to understand that I know your father lived and died a Prophet of the Living god, and I will be the last one to seek evidence of anything that the world might be pleased to criticize in his life, knowing that he alone was accountable to God for his conduct."

(Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 25-26, LDS archives.) [from Richard S. VanWagoner, "Polyandry in Nauvoo," Dialogue, Vol.18, No.3 Fall 1985, p.78 note 12]

President Angus Cannon also told Joseph Smith's son: 'Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked [Eliza R. Snow] the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, "I thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that."' (Stake President Angus M. Cannon, statement of interview with Joseph III, 23, LDS archives.)

Josephine

Faithful Mormon and wife of Joseph Smith, Sylvia Sessions (Lyon), on her deathbed told her daughter, Josephine, that she (Josephine) was the daughter of Joseph Smith. Josephine testified: "She (Sylvia) then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church." (Affidavit to Church Historian Andrew Jenson, 24 Feb. 1915)

BYU Professor admits to Joseph's children

In her testimony given at a Brigham Young University devotional, Faithful Mormon Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner stated that she knew of children born to Smith's plural wives: "I know he [Joseph Smith] had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up. I know he had three children. They told me. I think two are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other names." (Read her full BYU testimony here: http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/merlbyu.htm

Prescindia D. Huntington

Faithful Mormon Prescindia D. Huntington, who was Normal Buell's wife and simultaneously a "plural wife" of the Prophet Joseph Smith, said that she did not know whether her husband Norman "or the Prophet was the father of her son, Oliver." And a glance at a photo of Oliver shows a strong resemblance to Emma Smith's boys. (Mary Ettie V. Smith, Fifteen Years Among the Mormons, page 34; also Fawn Brodie, No Man Knows My History pages 301-302, 437-39)

Joseph's First Counselor

"Joseph was very free in his talk about his women. He told me one day of a certain girl and remarked, that she had given him more pleasure than any girl he had ever enjoyed. I told him it was horrible to talk like this." - Joseph Smith's close confidant and First Counselor, William Law, Interview in Salt Lake Tribune, July 31, 1887

Meliassa Lott

Faithful Mormon Melissa Lott (Smith Willes) testified that she had been Joseph's wife 'in very deed.' (Affidavit of Melissa Willes, 3 Aug. 1893, Temple Lot case, 98, 105; Foster, Religion and Sexuality, p. 156.)

Louisa Beaman

In a court affidavit, faithful Mormon Joseph Noble wrote that Joseph told him he had spent the night with Louisa Beaman. (Temple Lot Case, p. 427)

Emily D. Partridge

Emily D. Partridge (Smith Young) said she 'roomed' with Joseph the night following her marriage to him and said that she had 'carnal intercourse' with him. (Temple Lot case, (complete transcript), pp. 364, 367, 384; see Foster, 'Religion and Sexuality,' p. 15.)

William Clayton

Joseph Smith's personal secretary records that on May 22nd, 1843, Smith's first wife Emma found Joseph and Eliza Partridge secluded in an upstairs bedroom at the Smith home. Emma was devastated. (William Clayton's journal entry for 23 May; see Smith, pp. 105-106)

William Clayton also recorded a visit to young Almera Johnson on May 16, 1843: 'Prest. Joseph and I went to B[enjamin] F. Johnson's to sleep.'Johnson himself later noted that on this visit Smith stayed with Almera 'as man and wife' and 'occupied the same room and bed with my sister, that the previous month he had occupied with the daughter of the late Bishop Partridge as his wife.' Almera Johnson also confirmed her secret marriage to Joseph Smith: 'I lived with the prophet Joseph as his wife and he visited me at the home of my brother Benjamin F.' (Zimmerman, I Knew the Prophets, p. 44; see also The Origin of Plural Marriage, Joseph F. Smith, Jr., Deseret News Press, pp. 70-71.)

and this...

http://www.i4m.com/think/history/joseph_smith_sex.htm

http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_josephsmithpolyandrypolygamy_section1.html

In fact, Joseph Smith's original 1831 polygamy revelation, given to a group of married men while they were visiting a Native-American tribe, also explains procreation as the purpose of polygamy:

"For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and Just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles."

- Prophet Joseph Smith, The Joseph Smith Revelations Text and Commentary, p. 374-376, http://www.utlm.org/onlineresources/indianpolygamyrevelation.htm

It's been explained to you what the Spirit is all about. That you choose to disregard it in your single-minded pursuit of "proving" that Joseph was dishonest and lied is dishonest in itself.

Please explain this mindset. Are you saying that no matter what the facts dictate, belief in what the Spirit is all about trumps actual truth?

When you're ready to actually have a discussion, rather than brushing aside and misrepresenting what you're told as you march to your inevitable "conclusion", I may participate. Until then, it's not worth the further effort to try to instruct you - as the rest of the posts in this thread have shown.

If you could answer my one question, you'd be the first in here to do so:

Q: In the letter written to Sarah Ann Whitney by Joseph Smith, was Emma Smith being deceived?

Have a good time with your rationalizations.

:potcallskettleblack:

[jwhitlock]

You know what I tire of, people claiming things and not responding to questions they have no answer for. Regarding whether or not Joseph Smith consummated his plural marriages, we know this:

We "know" nothing of the sort. All you've done is a copy and past from anti-Mormon sites, without regard to having any interest in a real discussion.

I wondered if your "apology" in the other thread was real. Evidently it was just window dressing.

Perhaps you and your good friend Redefined can get together and commiserate in your rationalizations. It's certainly evident that you both have no interest in learning or discussing anything, but instead are just looking for a stage to slander the Church. When either of you are ready for an honest discussion, it may be worthwhile to respond to you. Right now, it's obvious that you just consider your anti-Mormon copy and paste postings the "final word" on the subject, without regard to any other evidence.

Oh, and consider yourself reported for violating board rules.

[Chaos]

- Do post original comments. Comments should contain original thoughts and comments. Posts that are mostly

[Redefined]

We "know" nothing of the sort. All you've done is a copy and past from anti-Mormon sites, without regard to having any interest in a real discussion.

I wondered if your "apology" in the other thread was real. Evidently it was just window dressing.

Perhaps you and your good friend Redefined can get together and commiserate in your rationalizations. It's certainly evident that you both have no interest in learning or discussing anything, but instead are just looking for a stage to slander the Church. When either of you are ready for an honest discussion, it may be worthwhile to respond to you. Right now, it's obvious that you just consider your anti-Mormon copy and paste postings the "final word" on the subject, without regard to any other evidence.

Oh, and consider yourself reported for violating board rules.

I guess you find it worth your while then.

[Chaos]

Joseph Smith painted the picture himself. . . reading through the experiences here http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/ has given me a picture of Joseph Smith using his position and authority to get what he wanted.

This website is notorious for quote mining and they don't use footnotes. If you use it you are required to provide the complete reference (book, journal, year, page) of anything you cut and paste.

Here is a rule we haved used for debating hot topics that go in circles until somebody has a melt down and it is going to start now. Everybody can say what they think once but then they have to move on to documentation. No website spam is allowed. If you have already said what you don't like or what you think you need to step it up for the next post or go to another thread where you have something new to say.

Report offenders and they will be banned from the thread.

[WalkerW]

As to those that actually did believe they had recieved a spiritual confirmation which were what 1 or 2 of them?

I provided a good number to make my point. Some we have no records at all.

Their "spiritual experiences" do not prove Joseph Smith had noble intentions.

But it gives more credibility to his original claim of revelation. Appealing to motive without evidence is rather fallacious.

I am not one that is willing to just take someone's word that their "spiritual experience"= "truth".

Good thing I didn't say to do this. I'm simply presenting the historical record. The record at the very least demonstrates that there was a source independent of Joseph Smith that convinced these women.

I also am not one to take someone's word that their own "spiritual experiences" prove that another's "spiritual experiences" were true.

That is fine. Once again, I'm simply presenting the historical record. I am not willing to take someone's appeal to another's motive without evidence.

Because, then person A can claim they had a "spiritual experience" that confirms that bigfoot is real, person B can claim that they know bigfoot is real because they had a "spiritual experience" that told them person A was telling the truth. While at the same time all over the world People XYandZ have had "spiritual experiences" which confirm to them that bigfoot is not real.

This is irrelevant.

We can argue back and forth about whose "spiritual experiences" are true, or we can take that out of the equation because it doesn't contribute to finding the answer.

To remove the "spiritual experiences" from the equation is to remove a central aspect of the historical record. As Dr. Richard L. Anderson pointed out, "History is not a tool for going far beyond the external data." (Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 1981) You don't have to believe the spiritual experiences. However, in order to be objective, you must take them into account. These individuals at least believed they had had these experiences. Evaluating the 19th century religious mind might be a better route. Simply declaring these separate women's spiritual experiences void and making up a motive for Joseph Smith is just poor analysis.

[Calm]

To remove the "spiritual experiences" from the equation is to remove a central aspect of the historical record. As Dr. Richard L. Anderson pointed out, "History is not a tool for going far beyond the external data." (Investigating the Book of Mormon Witnesses, 1981) You don't have to believe the spiritual experiences. However, in order to be objective, you must take them into account. These individuals at least believed they had had these experiences. Evaluating the 19th century religious mind might be a better route. Simply declaring these separate women's spiritual experiences void and making up a motive for Joseph Smith is just poor analysis.

It certainly does not make much sense to remove the "spiritual experience" when that is the foundational claim being made for the motivation of an action, both by Joseph Smith and by many of the women who then accepted plural marriage.

That would be like refusing to examine love as a motivator for marriage because it is a personal experience unable to be shared with another even though the individual claims he wants to get married because he loves the woman and the woman believes he loves her because of her own response to that love.

[thews]

We "know" nothing of the sort. All you've done is a copy and past from anti-Mormon sites, without regard to having any interest in a real discussion.

Not true. I quoted the information and its source. Instead of commenting on it, you simply disregard it as false, even though it's true. You have nothing but a blanket statement claiming it has nothing to do with the OP, which it doesn. so if you wish to back up that claim I've posted data for you to reference... you posted nothing but opinion ...your opinion.

I wondered if your "apology" in the other thread was real. Evidently it was just window dressing.

The only thing I apologized for was making the statement that Mormons could be identified by their undergarments, as I couldn't prove it. This doesn't mean that everything I posted was wrong, but just that one point. Again you say nothing and add nothing.

Perhaps you and your good friend Redefined can get together and commiserate in your rationalizations.

Perhaps you could make a point worth making, that isn't based on blind faith. there's a lot of data for you to dispute if you wish.

It's certainly evident that you both have no interest in learning or discussing anything, but instead are just looking for a stage to slander the Church.

What's evident is that you consider any rational discussion of the Mormon church and its actualy history as "slander" when the truth is told. If you wish to dispute something, then post something in retort ...you have nothing but your opinion.

When either of you are ready for an honest discussion, it may be worthwhile to respond to you.

You keep saying the same thing, but to have an "honest" discussion, you have to make a point... you know, post some data, be specific in what you disagree with, etc.

Right now, it's obvious that you just consider your anti-Mormon copy and paste postings the "final word" on the subject, without regard to any other evidence.

And again you say the same thing, which is nothing.

Oh, and consider yourself reported for violating board rules.

What rules? Posting the truth? I have to prove everything I say with sources, but obviously you believe you can state opinion saying nothing and being offended by the truth. If you had something to post in retort, you would, but you don't, so you can't, and all you have left is to report me in the hopes I'll be banned and the truth will just go away. You accuse critics of "slander" which is unfounded. Please state exactly what was slanderous? (use data and sources please and be very specific on what points you disagree with)

[thews]

If there is any further use of cut & paste instead of personal responses the offenders will be banned from the thread.

I'm failing to understand the rules here. When data is posted by cutting and pasting, isn't that the purpose of giving credit for its source? Isn't the inverse of someone claiming it and not being able to prove it, claiming it's false without being able to prove it's false?

[Zakuska]

If you could answer my one question, you'd be the first in here to do so:

Q: In the letter written to Sarah Ann Whitney by Joseph Smith, was Emma Smith being deceived?

Perhaps the reason you claim you haven't been answered...

There are only 4 people who could answer that question difinitively thews. All of them are dead.

Go buy yourself a Ouija board and find out.