What is the actual substance of your post regarding Elizabeth Brotherton? Let me know and I'll answer the question. I must admit, I skip over the vast majority of your "posts."
What's interesting is that Elizabeth had a much different view of things that her sister.
…
She was the plural wife of Parley P. Pratt.
…
Why is it that two sisters could see the gospel of Jesus Christ with such different eyes?
…
One might ask whether the following scripture from Matthew is applicable in this instance and others like it.
There are some missing parts because of cut and pasting. Did my best!
A lot of reading, I know. Apparently, you have missed out on the conversation. This will help you get up to speed without having to worry your poor little head about reading the whole thread. To be fair, there have been other folks who have made comments...but nothing substantial in regard to what I have presented in relating to Elizabeth Brotherton. I find it interesting that when alternate views are presented there sure is a lot of wiggling around and misdirection.
Do you have something worth contributing besides name calling?
Fibber,
I have no idea what's the actual substance of your "posts" regarding Elizabeth. Are you trying to say that since she was converted, she couldn't have had a relationship with Bennett? If so, okay. Who cares?
I'm unsure of what your actual substance is or what you are asking. Please boil down your substance in a few sentences and I will answer.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
Wang, in full disclosure, you will have to do a bit of footwork and read some of the links I've provided in order to get a handle on what I've been saying.
You won't do it though. Doing so might offer an unwanted 'speedbump' to your worldview. But I'm providing a recommendation that you do so anyway.
Have you spent as much time looking at the life of Elizabeth Brotherton as you have Martha?
There are some missing parts because of cut and pasting. Did my best!
A lot of reading, I know. Apparently, you have missed out on the conversation. This will help you get up to speed without having to worry your poor little head about reading the whole thread. To be fair, there have been other folks who have made comments...but nothing substantial in regard to what I have presented in relating to Elizabeth Brotherton. I find it interesting that when alternate views are presented there sure is a lot of wiggling around and misdirection.
Do you have something worth contributing besides name calling?
Fibber,
I have no idea what's the actual substance of your "posts" regarding Elizabeth. Are you trying to say that since she was converted, she couldn't have had a relationship with Bennett? If so, okay. Who cares?
I'm unsure of what your actual substance is or what you are asking. Please boil down your substance in a few sentences and I will answer.
You are SO FAR off the mark, Wang. I'm not going to spoon feed you. Truthfully, from past experience, it's not worth it. Anyone that would end most of their posts by ridiculing another poster is not worth my additional time. What I will say, however, is that the silence is deafening. And you're just filling it up with nothing. Dude, I'm tempted to put you on ignore. Problem is, you come up with some weird Harold stuff that I feel needs some push back on. But this time, I'm done with you.
Keep up the fight. Opposition provides the key ingredient in "proving contraries" ( a nod to the prophet Joseph Smith.)
How does anything in your first paragraph lead to anything you say in the second one?
Pot calling kettle. One doesn’t have to look very far up thread to see an ACTUAL example (yours) of a second paragraph of a response not having anything to do with the substance of what was being said by the poster being responded to. Namely, me. I will leave it to you to make the connection on this most recent post. The second paragraph does have a substantial ‘potential connection’ with the first.
It doesn’t take much to connect the dots.
Regards,
MG
MG, I think you misunderstand me. Back up a little, read what I said, and try not to react defensively. I'm just trying to make sense of what you're saying.
If you’ve read the information I’ve posted it seems to portray a woman (Elizabeth) who was truly converted to the gospel and the truth she saw in it…rather than any one man. She remained steadfast in her testimony at the expense of alienating her sister and her family. When she pointed the finger at Martha she would have known that was the end of her sisterly relationship. Wouldn’t you think that this must have torn her apart?
How does anything in your first paragraph lead to anything you say in the second one?
The supposition that you propose in paragraph one, that Elizabeth "was truly converted to the gospel" does not create the the condition, in paragraph two, that this inevitably leads one to be suspicious of Martha's so-called relationship with Bennett. You make it sound like one idea flows from the other. It doesn't.
I'm trying to understand what you're actually saying, which is why I called your attention to it.
By the way, if you want to call me out on posts where you don't think I'm not actually responding to what you said, please feel free to point them out at the time that I post them.
Pot calling kettle. One doesn’t have to look very far up thread to see an ACTUAL example (yours) of a second paragraph of a response not having anything to do with the substance of what was being said by the poster being responded to. Namely, me. I will leave it to you to make the connection on this most recent post. The second paragraph does have a substantial ‘potential connection’ with the first.
It doesn’t take much to connect the dots.
Regards,
MG
MG, I think you misunderstand me. Back up a little, read what I said, and try not to react defensively. I'm just trying to make sense of what you're saying.
If you’ve read the information I’ve posted it seems to portray a woman (Elizabeth) who was truly converted to the gospel and the truth she saw in it…rather than any one man. She remained steadfast in her testimony at the expense of alienating her sister and her family. When she pointed the finger at Martha she would have known that was the end of her sisterly relationship. Wouldn’t you think that this must have torn her apart?
How does anything in your first paragraph lead to anything you say in the second one?
The supposition that you propose in paragraph one, that Elizabeth "was truly converted to the gospel" does not create the the condition, in paragraph two, that this inevitably leads one to be suspicious of Martha's so-called relationship with Bennett. You make it sound like one idea flows from the other. It doesn't.
I'm trying to understand what you're actually saying, which is why I called your attention to it.
By the way, if you want to call me out on posts where you don't think I'm not actually responding to what you said, please feel free to point them out at the time that I post them.
Morley,
Fibber has no idea what he is trying to say. I asked him for clarification, and he was unable to do so. Honestly, it's like reading the ramblings of a madman. Completely incoherent. Let's hope he clarifies what he's actually trying to say.
"I'm on paid sabbatical from BYU in exchange for my promise to use this time to finish two books."
Fibber has no idea what he is trying to say. I asked him for clarification, and he was unable to do so. Honestly, it's like reading the ramblings of a madman. Completely incoherent. Let's hope he clarifies what he's actually trying to say.
I've said what I've said. Quite clearly. Truthfully? I don't think you are a serious man. You don't take telling the truth seriously. You don't take evidence placed right in front of your face seriously. I don't take you seriously anymore. It took me a while to get to this point. I was giving you the benefit of a doubt.
The supposition that you propose in paragraph one, that Elizabeth "was truly converted to the gospel" does not create the the condition, in paragraph two, that this inevitably leads one to be suspicious of Martha's so-called relationship with Bennett. You make it sound like one idea flows from the other. It doesn't.
Elizabeth's testimony/affidavit in regard to Martha has to be taken seriously. That's the connection.
MG, I think you misunderstand me. Back up a little, read what I said, and try not to react defensively. I'm just trying to make sense of what you're saying.
The supposition that you propose in paragraph one, that Elizabeth "was truly converted to the gospel" does not create the the condition, in paragraph two, that this inevitably leads one to be suspicious of Martha's so-called relationship with Bennett. You make it sound like one idea flows from the other. It doesn't.
I'm trying to understand what you're actually saying, which is why I called your attention to it.
By the way, if you want to call me out on posts where you don't think I'm not actually responding to what you said, please feel free to point them out at the time that I post them.
Morley,
Fibber has no idea what he is trying to say. I asked him for clarification, and he was unable to do so. Honestly, it's like reading the ramblings of a madman. Completely incoherent. Let's hope he clarifies what he's actually trying to say.
It's tough to figure out but it seems one thing he posted is this:
There isn't any direct connection with Bennett and Brotherton as far as I know as far as her being one of his brothel or spiritual wives there in Nauvoo.
That's after he was called on for implying exactly that multiple times in his earlier posts. That's extremely dishonest.
To be fair, there have been other folks who have made comments...but nothing substantial in regard to what I have presented in relating to Elizabeth Brotherton. I find it interesting that when alternate views are presented there sure is a lot of wiggling around and misdirection.
