why me Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) Here: http://www.deathandt...ous-city-state/-SmacThe author of the text is DJ Pangburn. It sounds like a false name. Edited June 28, 2012 by why me
Calm Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) The author of the text is DJ Pangburn. It sounds like a false name.Not really: http://www.whitepages.com/name/Pangburn/Even: http://www.whitepages.com/name/Dj-Pangburn/ Edited June 28, 2012 by calmoriah
why me Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Not really: http://www.whitepages.com/name/Pangburn/Even: http://www.whitepages.com/name/Dj-Pangburn/I figured it was the real name.
Calm Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I figured it was the real name.Then why did you say it sounded like a false name?
bcuzbcuz Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 And then there's this pic, which purports to be a photograph of Joseph Smith:Has anyone ever seen this one before? I have my doubts.Thanks,-SmacA photograph of Joseph Smith? Hardly. The whole process of photography was still in its infancy in 1844 and was definitely not widespread.
bcuzbcuz Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I've seen the picture before and I'm sure it's been discredited. As far as I know Joseph never had any photos taken.There is no evidence that photography had made its way to Nauvoo by 1844. Photography was still a process requiring very long sittings and arduous processing to get a result.
Aquilifer Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 The irony is that this rant about the Expositor, trampling on the Constitution, the "insurrection" as the Nauvoo Legion mobilized, etc., is pretty much gutted in the Firmage/Mangum source that he cites. A little bit selective in his reading, eh? It's irritating when people learn just enough about Mormons to confirm their worst biases.
why me Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Then why did you say it sounded like a false name?Because it does.
why me Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 The irony is that this rant about the Expositor, trampling on the Constitution, the "insurrection" as the Nauvoo Legion mobilized, etc., is pretty much gutted in the Firmage/Mangum source that he cites. A little bit selective in his reading, eh?It's irritating when people learn just enough about Mormons to confirm their worst biases.It irony is that such articles like Pangburns caused the mormons to defend themselves against the mobs that were incited by such articles at that time of Joseph Smith. But I think that the irony was lost on the author. .
Tacenda Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I've always wondered why we don't have a photo of Joseph Smith when we do of so many in his era. Conspiracy Theorist that I am.
happy Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Seems like the owner of said website has a lot of anti-LDS opinions. Linking to the page to posthumously turn "dead Mormons" gay isn't very nice.
Calm Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 I've always wondered why we don't have a photo of Joseph Smith when we do of so many in his era. Conspiracy Theorist that I am.Because we don't have so many of those in his era: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photography#Early_History:_Development_of_chemical_photography"Boulevard du Temple", taken byLouis Daguerre in late 1838 or early 1839,.. was the first-ever photograph of people. Joseph died in 1844. Not a lot of time for a new technology....
HairBear Posted June 28, 2012 Posted June 28, 2012 Most people will read articles like this and come to the conclusion that this is who Joseph is and won't consider other opinions, or the accuracy of what they've been told. It just seems to me that someone can say anything they want about Joseph Smith, or the Church, and it's most likely accepted and we members have to defend against the claims. Which is hard for those who don't know much, or anything, about FAIR or the MI, and maybe why a lot of new converts outside Utah, and the US in general, fall away from the Church soon after being baptised.Just my opinion.
Recommended Posts