Liar, Liar Pants On Fire

[Zakuska]

So Xanders thread got locked so I thought we could discuss John Taylors debate in France with some "Reverend Gentlemen".

http://olivercowdery...0Tayl.htm#pg08b

This one was funny... a Mr. Robertson had just been repremanded by the moderator for trying to read a speech...

Mr. Robertson nevertheless continued to read most of his speech. -- He said he was a stranger in Boulogne, as well his opponents, and his heart warmed to them when he thought how far they come to propagate their opinions of religion -- from the Great Salt Lake, in the far west of America; but when he remembered that they acknowledged as their head the impostor J. Smith, jun., and that their mission was to disseminate his imposture, he felt that duty required that they should be fully exposed, and that no false delicacy should be used as regarded them. He and his friends had quoted against the testimony of General Bennett and Professor Caswell, and of works published in America, in 1848. These works had testified that Joseph Smith kept up a seraglio of "Sisters of the White Veil," and "Sisters of the Green Veil;" and that Sidney Rigdon, who had at one time been almost as great a man among the Mormonites as Joe Smith, had quarreled with Joe for the latter's attempt to introduce his, Rigdon's daughter, into the sisterhood. Was there not a body of men amongst the Mormonites called "Danites," or "Destroying Angels," who were banded together to assassinate such as were supposed to be enemies of the body? and had not the existence of these men caused the hostility of the Americans to the Mormonite body? had not Governor Boggs been assassinated by this body, or some of them? Now could any of the Mormonites quote in their favour any works of equal authority to those which he (Mr. Robertson and his friends) had produced? It had been said they attempted to limit the power of God, in denying the most daring and blasphemous pretensions of Joseph Smith. It was not true. They did not come here to limit the power of God. God forbid. But they denied that God had revealed anything to Joseph Smith, and they had come here to denounce Joseph Smith as an impostor, on evidence that would satisfy the most expansive-minded jury. Now he (Mr. Robertson) demanded distinctly of Mr. Taylor what was the nature of the sisterhood of the White and Green Veil -- what was the nature of the dispute between Sidney Rigdon and Joseph Smith -- and what was the nature of the society called "Danites" or "Destroying Angels." He (Mr. Robertson) could easily understand the reserve of Mr. Caswell's conversation when he met with Mr. Taylor. How did he know that Mr. Taylor was not a destroying angel? (Laughter.)

So the good Reverends debating brother Taylor accused the so called danites for "assasinating" Gov. Boggs. Brother Taylors response is hillarious.

Elder Taylor. -- It would seem from the remarks of Mr. Robertson, that he also attaches very great importance to the statement, of Mr. Caswell and John C. Bennett, of course, for want of better testimony. I have already referred to their characters, I have already stated that I proved Mr. Caswell to have told one lie, and a man that will tell one falsehood to injure an innocent people, will tell five hundred, if necessary, for the same object. I have also spoken of John C. Bennett's character; perhaps these gentlemen suppose that great importance is to be attached to Mr. Caswell's statement, because he is a reverend gentleman; but reverend gentlemen can tell falsehoods, when it answers their purpose, as well as others. I will presently show some of their proceedings. We have had a terrible account about the murder of Governor Boggs, I suppose given by the Rev. Mr. Caswell. Ex-governor Boggs is now living in California, at the gold mines. (Laughter.) But I suppose he must be dead, because a reverend gentleman said so.

So not only has John Taylor caught Caswell of lieing about the printing office incident... But also possibly lieing about the "assasination" of Ex-Governor Boggs.

This is as bad as the Shoot-out at the Carthage Jail balogne modern Anti-Mormons are writing about.

<More forthcoming>

Edited September 1, 2011 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

This had some intresting facts...

We are again very soberly told about "Danites," and "Destroying Angels." I never happened to be acquainted with any of those among the Latter-day Saints, but I can give him an account of some that I met with, the which, for the honor of humanity, and that of the profession of my friends, I could wish I were not forced into. We have heard about the statement of ministers, I shall now be necessitated to tell some of their acts. I was going with my family to Far West, in the State of Missouri, and while staying at a place called DeWitt, on the banks of the Missouri River, a mob of about 150 persons came, led on by two ministers, the one a Presbyterian, the other a Baptist; the name of the one was Sashiel Woods, the other Abbot Hancock, they lived in Carrolton, Carrol County, Missouri. They came there with swords by their sides; their object was to drive off men, women, and children, from their own homes that they had purchased and paid for. After menacing the people for some time, they passed resolutions, that if the Latter-day Saints did not leave there in ten days, they would destroy every man, woman, and child, burn their houses, and throw their goods into the Missouri River. These resolutions were drawn up by these ministers of mercy. These and other ministers, one a Methodist, of the name of (Samuel) Bogard, engaged with a mob in driving about 15,000 men, women, and children, from their homes, in the depth of winter, after robbing and killing many in the most barbarous manner. I have seen hundreds thus driven, with no other covering than a blanket or a sheet stuck upon poles, to screen them from the inclemency of the weather; people that had been in comfortable homes, and good circumstances, rendered houseless and homeless by the inhumanity of these wretches. Many of them died in consequence of their exposure, others were imprisoned, some of their brethren killed, and their flesh brought to them to feed on. These deeds were principally instigated by ministers. These, gentlemen, are the destroying angels if you wish to know about them. Is it difficult for such men to write books, such as we have heard, to cover their infamy and deeds of darkness? Who but depraved men could write such books? And is it difficult to attach the name of Rev.? This gives sanction, of course, to their statements, which are swallowed with avidity, and circulated by their brethren here. We are told that the Latter-day Saints were thieves, that they stole persons property. Why did not the law punish them if they were? Will these gentlemen tell me? Men that would rob, murder, and drive people from their homes, having the laws in their own hands, their own courts and judges, would certainly try those first. There are laws in America for punishing thieves, as well as here. These statements are too flimsy for intelligence to be blended with. We hear about Joseph Smith's crime, he was tried thirty-nine times before the tribunals of his county, and nothing proven against him. Why do not these gentlemen bring some legal authenticated testimony from those courts? Why did not the authors of these books do this? Because they could not. When Joseph Smith was among his enemies, on the ground where they could have proven these things, why did they not do it? I ask these gentlemen for some legal proof. It will go much further with me than the statements, opinions, and reports of their Rev. authors, and might shew from whence springs that bitter, acrimonious spirit, which has been manifested by my opponents?

<More Forthcoming>

Edited September 1, 2011 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

This one from the "good" Reverends...

However, Joe carried off the young woman, stole her in fact from her parents. He came now to Joe's pretended discovery of the plates. Joe pretended that an angel directed him to a certain mound to dig for sacred plates on which a revelation was engraved. It appears that after several attempts Joseph Smith at length discovered a box, and in this box were the inspired plates. Now, it was important to remark this part of the story. In the first place, these plates said to be buried 1400 years, were fastened together with rings, in the form of a book, though every one knows that in that age writings were formed into the shape of scrolls. These plates were a few in number, about six inches long, and yet one half of them contained as much as the whole of the Old Testament. They profess to refer to Jewish history, and yet they are written in Egyptian hieroglyphics. They distinctly, though alleged to have been written 1400 years ago, refer to the mariner's compass. The person who wrote to Smith's dictation had never seen the plates. Joseph Smith having talked to him from behind a screen; but where the Book of Mormon came from was not long a mystery, for the brother of one Solomon Spaulding, going to one of the meetings, recognized his late brother's work, a romance of ancient America, which has never been published, but of which the MS was lost. The widow of Solomon Spaulding testified to the same effect, and that charge has never been replied to, to this hour. But the great consideration is, that these persons pretend to add to, and supersede the Word of God. Now the Bible is the sheet-anchor of Christians, and it neither needs the Book of Mormon nor any other book, nor the assistance of Joe Smith nor any other Joe. The awful voice of prophecy has spoken for the last time, and the cause of inspiration is closed. Whatever is needed by the Christian for his guidance is there, and Mr. Cater could remind his opponents of the curse denounced by the Spirit of God against all who added to, or subtracted from that volume.

So once again writtings on Brass plates during the time of the BOM is being thought an Anachromism by the critics of the BOM.

"A Bible, A Bible. and there can be no more Bible"

<More forthcoming>

Edited September 1, 2011 by Zakuska

[Zakuska]

And the response...

Elder Taylor. -- I am prepared to answer all of these statements, and any charges that these gentlemen can bring. We have certainly heard a very strange declaration from our friend who has just sat down. He tells us the canon of scriptures is closed, and that we have all of the word of God that ever was written. I wonder where he studied his Bible; for certainly, if the Bible is true that he professes to believe in, we must assuredly have not got all by a great deal. We will go to your Bible, sir, and inquire. I read of a great many books, which I will quote for your information, and perhaps you will be able to tell us something about them. Will Mr. Cater tell me where is the Book of Wars of the Lord? (see Numbers xxi. 14) and also the Book of Jasher? (Josh. x. 13). I wish some information about the Book of the Statues of the Kings of Israel. (1 Sam. x. 25). And also the Book of Enoch. (Jude 14.) Perhaps he will tell us where the Book of Nathan the Prophet is, (1 Chron. xxix. 29); together with the Book of Gad the Seer, (1 Chron. xxix. 29), and the Book of Ahijah the Prophet, (2 Chron. ix. 29). I should like to know from him also where the Book of Iddo the Seer is? (2 Chron. ix. 29). I should like to know from him also Shemaiah the Prophet, (2 Chron. xii. 15); Book of Jehu, (2 Chron. xx, 34); Book of the Sayings of the Seers, (2 Chron. xxxiii. 19)?

In the New Testament, the so-called, 1st Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, he says, "I wrote to you in an epistle not to keep company with fornicators." (1 Cor. v. 9.) In his Epistle to the Ephesians, he mentions his writing before to them on a mystery (iii. 3.); also his Epistle to the Colossians, written from Laodicea, (Col. iv. 16). St. Luke says, "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us." (St. Luke i. 1.) Where are those books, and the testimony of the rest of the Twelve, whose writings we have not. An Epistle of Jude. (Jude iii.) It is a pity that men who profess to be teachers should be so egregiously ignorant of the scriptures which we have. Here are sixteen books mentioned, some of which contain doctrines, prophecies, and visions of the greatest importance to the human family, written by prophets, seers, and revelators, under the immediate inspiration of the Almighty, and yet we have them not. Where are they, Mr. Cater? Yet this gentleman calls us impostors because we do not stick to the Bible.

[Zakuska]

This was quite intresting:

Elder Taylor -- I again arise with pleasure, but I am somewhat surprised to hear the remarks made by Mr. Robertson. He states that he cannot prove a negative, and that he is not bound to prove that Joseph Smith was a bad man. I understand that he challenged me -- that in that challenge he represents Joseph as a daring impostor. I know nothing of Mr. Smith but what is good; he ought to prove his assertions, or not make them. I am not the challenger; I am on the defence. Am I to be brought here to answer charges, and then become my own accuser? Let them bring forth evidence and I am prepared to rebut it. He asks me if I will tell him what convinced me, and upon what evidence I believed the Gospel. This I will do with pleasure.

Mr. Robertson's and the Good Reverend's arguments were in shambles at this point, and they shifted the burden of proof to the defense. They say Joseph Smith was a bad man and an Imposter yet provide not a shred of evidence to the fact.

He then goes into his conversion story.

<more to come>

[Zakuska]

This was hilarious... the opponents have been harping and harping on what a bad character Joseph Smith had so check out President Taylors response...

Chairman. -- I put the question hypothetically.

Elder Taylor. -- I have already given you testimony concerning the vision and ordination that Joseph Smith had, and I base my authority on the truth of that, or acknowledge I have none.

Chairman. -- I put the question categorically. Are the ministers of the Mormonites sent of God by Divine appointment?

Elder Taylor. -- Yes!

Chairman. -- That is an answer.

Elder Taylor. -- In relation to character, that these gentlemen still seem so strenuous about, if they go upon that they destroy the foundation of the Christian religion, and uproot the Bible. Moses was chosen of the Lord to do a great work, yet we are told of him, that he slew an Egyptian and hid him in the sand. He commanded the Israelites to borrow jewels of the Egyptians, and they took them off with them into the wilderness. Noah was a good man, and the Lord saved him and his family, when the world was destroyed. Yet we find Noah indulging in wine until he was drunk.

Mr. Robertson rose to a point of order; he thought it wrong to attack the scriptures, that this was irrelevant.

Chairman. -- I think, certainly, that to attack the Bible, is to say the least of it, very delicate, particularly in a mixed congregation, where the people may not be competent to judge, it may be productive of injury. I shall certainly dissolve the meeting if we have remarks of that kind.

I like President Taylor find this response quite amusing... "Quick, sweep the short comings of the Prophets and Apostles in the Bible under the rug so the general public will be left in the dark because the public is too dumb to make an intelligent decision?!"

And these are seekers of Truth?! How is stating simple facts about the people in the Bible that the Bible itself unabashadly declares an "Attack on the Bible" I will never understand!

He goes on...

Elder Taylor. -- I am a little amused to hear those gentlemen make the remarks they do about the scriptures. I do not want to hide anything, that is in them, nor anything that is in the Book of Mormon, nor in any of our works; I do not believe that the Bible will be sustained by hiding it, or its principles. If called upon I am prepared to substantiate the doctrines of the Bible. I believe it to be true, and preach its doctrines. But what is the matter? The character of Joseph Smith has been attacked, that is the only ground they profess to build their objections to this work upon; I say that the position is false; they affirm that it is a true position. I, then, go to prove from the scriptures, that if it be true they destroy their own book and the very religion they profess to believe in. Mr. Robertson tells me it is irrelevant: I must confess I do not see the irrelevancy, but one thing I do see, and so will every intelligent man, that it strikes at the root of all their arguments; and proves that the very weapon which they use against me would destroy their own system. I say their argument are wrong and infidel, this proves that they are; for if proving Joseph Smith's character to be bad would destroy the truth of his principles, and the validity of his mission, then as a natural consequence, if the characters of Noah, Moses, David, Peters and others were objectionable, the truth of their principles, and the validity of their missions would also be destroyed, and the axe be laid at the root of the Christian religion. The scriptures do not want bolstering up; they bear the impress of Jehovah, and stand forth in bold relief as the testimony of the servants of God; although there are things in them which require investigation, in order satisfactorily to account for their propriety. Men, too, have had their weaknesses and imperfections, and the scriptures make a faithful record of them. I might refer here to David, Peter, and others, but sufficient has already been said to show the fallacy of these gentlemen's remarks, and that they have built their house on a sandy foundation; that their arguments are weak, powerless and futile; and that they have utterly failed to prove Joseph Smith's character to be bad -- the Book of Mormon to be false, or that the teachers of the religion are "daring impostors and blasphemers." I shall non proceed, as by arrangement, to examine their doctrines and calling, and see how their's will stand the test. In doing this I shall not assail the characters of the reformers, which I could easily do, having testimony in my possession, neither shall I attack the character of the Methodists, Independents or Baptists. Because, in the first place, I do not think, as I have already stated, that the truth of a system depends upon the character of an individual, and again, I consider it too degrading for a gentleman to engage in. If their system and calling would stand the test of the scriptures, I should certainly be glad; at any rate those and reason are the only weapons I shall use against them. So, gentlemen, I shall not trouble you with looking for testimony as to character. Here are three gentlemen who have thought proper to take upon themselves the office of censor; sit in the judgment-seat on my doctrines; how far they are competent for the task will be seen by examining their own faith and calling; for they profess to be reverend gentlemen, to be called to preach the gospel, and to administer in the name of the Lord, (name signifies authority). Hence a minister plenipotentiary, or any other officer of England or France goes in the name, or by virtue of the authority which he has received from his nation. Whatever business he transacts is recognized by the nation, for he is the representative and authorized agent of that nation. If any dishonour is done to him it is done to the nation whom he represents, and resented by them; if any benefit accrues through his administration, the nation receives the benefit; it is done by him in the name of the nation; but suppose I were to present myself to the English or French court, in the name of the United States, or of any other nation, and had no credentials to show that I was legally sent, and begin to officiate in the name of that nation, they would either consider me insane, or take me up for an impostor. In either case, my administrations would not be acknowledged, neither by the nation I came to, nor the nation from which I professed to be sent. The same would apply in any mercantile transactions. If a person was to go in the name of any house or firm and make use of their name without authority, he would be punished as a swindler, or hung for forgery. Yet I have before me three ministers, who profess to be sent of God, and to administer in the name of Jesus, who positively assert that God has not spoken nor given any revelation for 1800 years. To use the words of one of them, "the awful voice of prophecy has spoken for the last time and the cause of inspiration is closed." And they, too, come in the name of Jesus, and would have us believe that they are empowered by him to preach the gospel. But how do they know that they are called to preach, they have had no revelation, God has not spoken, inspiration has ceased, and he has never made any communication to the children of men for the last 1800 years. Perhaps, gentlemen, you will be able to tell me how you obtained your information; for I must confess that I know of no other way except by lineal descent, which two of these gentlemen do not even profess, unless their names are written in the Bible, and after searching the Bible diligently I have not met with them. There are only three ways that I know of to convey power or authority to make a covenant, or hold communication with another: 1st, by speaking: 2ndly, by writing, and 3rdly, by sending a messenger out of those, and I know of no other. I will suppose the mayor of Bouologne to have been absent for some time, and a person comes into the hall with a message from the mayor, he is immediately asked if the mayor has returned?

Man President Taylors is rocking their boat something fierce!

Edited September 1, 2011 by Zakuska

[frankenstein]

Elder Taylor must have been the one that started it all, his approach of defense seems typical of what occurs today, and atypical of what occur today i.e. dismiss everything a person says solely on the basis of character assassination, and actually addressing head on a point raised by a critic . As to the first point, may we dismiss a person out right who it can be shown has presented a falsehood?

I have not seen or read "shoot-out" used to describe Cartridge Jail and the murder of Joseph Smith, but I do know for a fact - and it is rears its head very frequently on this board - that the use of exaggerations or descriptions that promoted a agenda are used by both friend and foe of the LDS Church.

How is stating simple facts about the people in the Bible that the Bible itself unabashadly declares an "Attack on the Bible" I will never understand!

How often have critics of the LDS Church stated "simple facts" and inturn have been declared as attacking the LDS Church. As I recall, Xander may some statements in another thread (some time ago) no one choose to address those claims, rather that ensued with a deluge of attacks and insults on Xander and his motives.

I quoted Elder Oaks directly (though I do not believe he was Elder at the time) and I gave page numbers to those quotes, and what did I get in response personal attacks that I was quote mining, presenting things out of context (even though I provided the context) and accused of being in bed with those who attack the Church, yet all I had was provide unedited quotes from Dalin H. Oaks.

I would have to say that the point of my post is to express my confusion as to the purpose of this thread. As the claims I see you make against critics of the Church are things that defenders of the Church do on this very board and else where.

I dare say that a person could not state a simple uncomfortable fact about LDS Church without someone or several instantly claiming the person presenting the simple fact is attacking the LDS Church.

Edited September 1, 2011 by frankenstein

[Xander]

So the good Reverends debating brother Taylor accused the so called danites for "assasinating" Gov. Boggs. Brother Taylors response is hillarious.

Do you seriously not understand the difference between an accusation and a question? For the most part these men asked Taylor to explain what he knew of these matters. The fact is Boggs was shot in the head in a failed assassination attempt. It was the pro-Mormon Wasp magazine that published, "Boggs is undoubtedly killed according to report; but who did the noble deed remains to be found out." So clearly Mormons wanted Boggs dead and had no problem seeing him assassinated (Joseph Smith's brother was the Wasp's editor). Porter Rockwell, the notorious Danite, was arrested and spent eight months in jail on charges of conspiracy to assassinate Boggs. So no, it isn't like their questions were created out of whole cloth. They were asking Taylor what he knew about these matters.

So not only has John Taylor caught Caswell of lieing about the printing office incident... But also possibly lieing about the "assasination" of Ex-Governor Boggs.

If Taylor is trying to say Caswall lied about this then it is Taylor who is lying... again. By the way, didn't you just present a link to all this? Do you think we can't just click the link and see the full context for ourselves? So far nothing you have posted has anything to do with the fact that John Taylor intentionally deceived his audience on the subject of polygamy and that he flat out lied about the Haven interview, attributing to her comments she never made. You should have entitled the thread "stuff I think is funny from the debate based on my miscomprehension."

[stemelbow]

It sounds like a more than just a question issue though. Kinda like everyone was accusing Gee of with the Mike Reed presentation. More than just a question.

[Xander]

Except these men were obviously genuine in their questions, and genuine in their concerns. And they should have been concerned after what they had heard. Polygamy is no small thing. They wanted to get to the bottom of MANY things they had heard, and John Taylor did his best job playing the dancing politician. He bobbed, weaved, and deceived.

Gee's "question" for Reed was nothing of the sort. Gee's so-called question quickly became an accusation, and the assertion that Jared's presentation had already refuted Reed's was not based in factual evidence.

[stemelbow]

Except these men were obviously genuine in their questions, and genuine in their concerns. And they should have been concerned after what they had heard. Polygamy is no small thing. They wanted to get to the bottom of MANY things they had heard, and John Taylor did his best job playing the dancing politician. He bobbed, weaved, and deceived.

Gee's "question" for Reed was nothing of the sort. Gee's so-called question quickly became an accusation, and the assertion that Jared's presentation had already refuted Reed's was not based in factual evidence.

Funny how we perceive things based on our presumed posture. i'm kind of amazed you are able to think of it this way, actually. Seems all mixed up to me.

[Jaybear]

We have had a terrible account about the murder of Governor Boggs, I suppose given by the Rev. Mr. Caswell. Ex-governor Boggs is now living in California, at the gold mines. (Laughter.) But I suppose he must be dead, because a reverend gentleman said so.

Clever how Taylor avoids the more relevant question of whether the Mormons had anything to do with the assassin attempt, by exploiting the fact that fact that Reverend was obvious not aware Boggs had survived the attempt.

Of course if the Danites had nothing to do with the assassination attempt, the honest thing to do would point out that Caswell was mistaken, and that Boggs had survived, but insist that the Mormons had nothing to do with the attack.

If Taylor knew that the Danites were behind the assassination attempt, this is an effective way to deflect the question without actually lying.

Taylor would fit in well here.

[stemelbow]

Clever how Taylor avoids the more relevant question of whether the Mormons had anything to do with the assassin attempt, by exploiting the fact that fact that Reverend was obvious not aware Boggs had survived the attempt.

Of course if the Danites had nothing to do with the assassination attempt, the honest thing to do would point out that Caswell was mistaken, and that Boggs had survived, but insist that the Mormons had nothing to do with the attack.

If Taylor knew that the Danites were behind the assassination attempt, this is an effective way to deflect the question without actually lying.

Taylor would fit in well here.

So the spin you put on it all, somehow makes it appear in your head that the Danites were behind an assassination attempt,taylor knew that and was cleverly trying to deflect in order to steer the people's minds away from all of that?

okay. I'm sold

[Daniel Peterson]

Everybody with whom Kevin disagrees is almost immediately revealed to be a liar, a moron, an idiot, an incompetent, and/or a hypocrite. This is completely predictable.

Kevin just exposed me as a hypocrite this morning, over on a board that is more ideologically congenial to him. (I'm not sure whether this is the first time that he's revealed me to be a hypocrite or not. He outed me as an incompetent many years ago, of course.) And, extending his judgments from religion into his (I think relatively new) leftist political ideology, our genial polymath friend has also recently disclosed that Thomas Sowell is a liar. (Hence, Kevin says, it is unnecessary to read what Sowell has written prior to condemning it.)*

If one dares to disagree with Kevin, it's never a matter of if. It's only a question of when. You will be unmasked!

* Likewise, it is unnecessary to have been there to be able to pronounce upon the tone, intent, and (conspiratorial) background of a question asked in a seminar (e.g., John Gee's and Matt Roper's questions to Mike Reed). And others over at the lesser board, following Kevin's daring lead, have joined him in denouncing the Gee and Roper questions and one of Thomas Sowell's books, and in praising Mike Reed's seminar paper as "excellent," without having heard or read any of these things. It's a wonderful world we live in. Technological progress is advancing at a dizzying and ever-increasing rate: e-books are replacing conventional books and movies can now be watched on portable electronic devices, but, even before that process of change is complete, pure imagination is dispensing with reading and hearing altogether, rendering e-books and iPads utterly obsolete! Labor-saving devices have become too labor-intensive!

[stemelbow]

pure imagination is dispensing with reading and hearing altogether, rendering e-books and iPads utterly obsolete! Labor-saving devices have become too labor-intensive

I've found an "in" into the realm of scholarship now. I knew avoiding all the reading and thinking would get me where I wanted to be.

Edited September 1, 2011 by stemelbow

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

our genial polymath friend has also recently disclosed that Thomas Sowell is a liar.

We are all in pretty good company then.

He only said those things because Media Matters told him to say it.

[Zakuska]

Everybody with whom Kevin disagrees is almost immediately revealed to be a liar, a moron, an idiot, an incompetent, and/or a hypocrite. This is completely predictable.

Kevin just exposed me as a hypocrite this morning, over on a board that is more ideologically congenial to him. (I'm not sure whether this is the first time that he's revealed me to be a hypocrite or not. He outed me as an incompetent many years ago, of course.) And, extending his judgments from religion into his (I think relatively new) leftist political ideology, our genial polymath friend has also recently disclosed that Thomas Sowell is a liar. (Hence, Kevin says, it is unnecessary to read what Sowell has written prior to condemning it.)*

If one dares to disagree with Kevin, it's never a matter of if. It's only a question of when. You will be unmasked!

* Likewise, it is unnecessary to have been there to be able to pronounce upon the tone, intent, and (conspiratorial) background of a question asked in a seminar (e.g., John Gee's and Matt Roper's questions to Mike Reed). And others over at the lesser board, following Kevin's daring lead, have joined him in denouncing the Gee and Roper questions and one of Thomas Sowell's books, and in praising Mike Reed's seminar paper as "excellent," without having heard or read any of these things. It's a wonderful world we live in. Technological progress is advancing at a dizzying and ever-increasing rate: e-books are replacing conventional books and movies can now be watched on portable electronic devices, but, even before that process of change is complete, pure imagination is dispensing with reading and hearing altogether, rendering e-books and iPads utterly obsolete! Labor-saving devices have become too labor-intensive!

But dontcha Know Dr. Petersen... being a Mormon automatically makes us liars, because being Mormons makes us the Devils spawn by inheritance.

In reality Kevin is just playing the part of Paul...

Romans 3:4

4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

The problem is... Kevin seems to think he and his are excluded from Pauls little group.

Edited September 1, 2011 by Zakuska

[Jaybear]

So the spin you put on it all, somehow makes it appear in your head that the Danites were behind an assassination attempt,taylor knew that and was cleverly trying to deflect in order to steer the people's minds away from all of that?

okay. I'm sold

I believe ... for other reason ... that a mormon/Mormons were behind the attempt. I simply pointed out that Taylor's clever deflection is consistent with that preexisting belief.

You are welcome to believe what you wish. But I suspect if I asked what you believed about this matter, you would deflect by saying "I don't know who killed Boggs."

[Jaybear]

Everybody with whom Kevin disagrees is almost immediately revealed to be a liar, a moron, an idiot, an incompetent, and/or a hypocrite. This is completely predictable.

And here I thought this thread was about Taylor, not Kevin.

[Zakuska]

I believe ... for other reason ... that a mormon/Mormons were behind the attempt. I simply pointed out that Taylor's clever deflection is consistent with that preexisting belief.

You are welcome to believe what you wish. But I suspect if I asked what you believed about this matter, you would deflect by saying "I don't know who killed Boggs."

Someone killed Boggs?

He must have jumped their claim!

[Daniel Peterson]

And here I thought this thread was about Taylor, not Kevin.

It's really about Kevin, of course. Come on, counselor. Come to the party.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I believe ... for other reason ... that a mormon/Mormons were behind the attempt. I simply pointed out that Taylor's clever deflection is consistent with that preexisting belief.

You are welcome to believe what you wish. But I suspect if I asked what you believed about this matter, you would deflect by saying "I don't know who killed Boggs."

I am sure you have a wonderful spin story to tell. I bet it is about as good as the Spaulding/Rigdon Theory for the BoM.

[LeSellers]

And here I thought this thread was about Taylor, not Kevin.

The original topic point was to refute the accusation that President Taylor had lied. Zakusta has waged successful war on that matter: President Taylor did not lie, as Graham has charged.

However, as he is wont to do, Graham turned the thrust of the discussion to whether anything a Saint could say was trustworthy, informed, or biased.

As to, for instance, the question of Bogg's near death experience, the fact that a hostile jury found the only Saint charged with the crime innocent lends more than mere credence to the fact that no Saint was involved. At least an unbiased observer would come to that conclusion. That President Taylor did not trouble to point this out hardly negates it, he demonstrated that the whole charge (buried in an "innocent" question) was moot.

'Twasn't Dan'l Peterson who changed the subject.

Lehi

[Zakuska]

The original topic point was to refute the accusation that President Taylor had lied. Zakusta has waged successful war on that matter: President Taylor did not lie, as Graham has charged.

However, as he is wont to do, Graham turned the thrust of the discussion to whether anything a Saint could say was trustworthy, informed, or biased.

As to, for instance, the question of Bogg's near death experience, the fact that a hostile jury found the only Saint charged with the crime innocent lends more than mere credence to the fact that no Saint was involved. At least an unbiased observer would come to that conclusion. That President Taylor did not trouble to point this out hardly negates it, he demonstrated that the whole charge (buried in an "innocent" question) was moot.

'Twasn't Dan'l Peterson who changed the subject.

Lehi

Not to mention the fact that Peter, Paul and John also all spent time in Jail and were aquitted by their Judge and Juries too.

But see... ole' Joe Smith was deserving of his fate. And the Mormons deserved to be run out of the United states at gun point.

[Jaybear]

The original topic point was to refute the accusation that President Taylor had lied. Zakusta has waged successful war on that matter: President Taylor did not lie, as Graham has charged.

Taylor lied. That can't reasonably be disputed.

He said:

"I shall content myself by reading our views of chastity and marriage, from a work published by us, containing some of the articles of our Faith. "Doctrine and Covenants," page 330."

He then read a doctrinal statement expressly rejecting polygamy.

By representing that the statement reflected "our views of ... marriage" he lied.

How is this not patently obvious to you?