Joseph Smith--the best 'wing man' Brigham Young ever had

[MG 2.0]

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.

There isn't a 'smoking gun'. I'm not one to say that there wasn't something going on behind the scenes though. Elizabeth's affidavit seems to point that direction.

I haven't heard you respond directly to what I've put up in this thread in regard to Elizabeth. Are you going to pull a 'Wang' and plead ignorance? What kind of witness do you consider her to be? Why?

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

It's tough to figure out but it seems one thing he posted is this:

That's after he was called on for implying exactly that multiple times in his earlier posts. That's extremely dishonest.

Marcus,

Yes, that's extremely dishonest. I wish I could say I was surprised, but really, has Fibber ever been honest about anything?

[Marcus]

Doing my best to understand this from the mental gymnast:

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.

...So, things seem to be a little fuzzy...It seems rather shady.

I may have misspoke when I literally called her a "disciple" of Bennett but I do question whether or not he had some kind of undue influence over her for some reason or another. But I don't have any proof, just conjecture, on that point...

viewtopic.php?p=2906202#p2906202

So, in the end, after all the earlier innuendoes and implications, even the middle paragraph here with things seeming "fuzzy" and "shady," MG has nothing at all to back up what he's implied about Martha Brotherton. It's no wonder Everybody Wang Chung calls him the Fibber Gymnast.

[Marcus]

It's tough to figure out but it seems one thing he posted is this:

That's after he was called on for implying exactly that multiple times in his earlier posts. That's extremely dishonest.

Marcus,

Yes, that's extremely dishonest. I wish I could say I was surprised, but really, has Fibber ever been honest about anything?

Not here that I can recall.

[MG 2.0]

Still, no actual substantiative replies from Marcus and Wang to the posts I've made in regard to Elizabeth Brotherton and associated issues/connections with Martha. Just a lot of "why I don't like MG" stuff. Or, in Wang's case, "Uh, I just don't get it." Playing dumb doesn't work. Not with people that are supposed to be smart.

Regards,
MG

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Still, no actual substantiative replies from Marcus and Wang to the posts I've made in regard to Elizabeth Brotherton and associated issues/connections with Martha. Just a lot of "why I don't like MG" stuff. Or, in Wang's case, "Uh, I just don't get it." Playing dumb doesn't work. Not with people that are supposed to be smart.

Regards,
MG

Fibber,

Why the constant lying? Several people have asked you politely to clarify what you want addressed, but you have refused to do so. You are all over the map on this issue and nobody has a freaking clue what you are trying to say. It’s more confusing than Louis Midgley on crack.

Could you please provide a clear and concise summary of your key points? Clarifying your position will allow us to offer a well-structured and helpful response.

[Morley]

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.

Regards,
MG

Yes, I think that everyone would acknowledge that Elizabeth had unfortunate beliefs about Martha's character. It should also be acknowledged that Martha and her parents undoubtedly had the same kinds of unfavorable opinions about Elizabeth's character.

I agree that Elizabeth's testimony has to be taken seriously. All evidence should always be taken seriously. However, Elizabeth's affidavit makes no mention of Bennett nor of any potential influence he might have had over Martha. In spite of this, for some reason, you continue to suggest that this must be the case. You continue in your theory that since Martha turned down Brigham's advances and went public about them, that she must have been under the influence of evil--and under the influence of Bennett. You've got to be kidding.

In defaming Martha, you're doing the same sort of thing, now, that Joseph's crowd did, then, to those who spurned Smith's sexual advances. I think you're wrong to do this. No one is slut-shaming Elizabeth. You need not do so to Martha.

[Limnor]

Elizabeth's testimony/affidavit in regard to Martha has to be taken seriously. That's the connection.

Regards,
MG

Yes, I think that everyone would acknowledge that Elizabeth had unfortunate beliefs about Martha's character. It should also be acknowledged that Martha and her parents undoubtedly had the same kinds of unfavorable opinions about Elizabeth's character.

I agree that Elizabeth's testimony has to be taken seriously. All evidence should always be taken seriously. However, Elizabeth's affidavit makes no mention of Bennett nor of any potential influence he might have had over Martha. In spite of this, for some reason, you continue to suggest that this must be the case. You continue in your theory that since Martha turned down Brigham's advances and went public about them, that she must have been under the influence of evil--and under the influence of Bennett. You've got to be kidding.

In defaming Martha, you're doing the same sort of thing, now, that Joseph's crowd did, then, to those who spurned Smith's sexual advances. I think you're wrong to do this. No one is slut-shaming Elizabeth. You need not do so to Martha.

Thank you, Morley. I had come to a similar conclusion about MG’s argument, but it has been so muddled that I was uncertain of the point.

[MG 2.0]

Elizabeth's testimony/affidavit in regard to Martha has to be taken seriously. That's the connection.

Regards,
MG

Yes, I think that everyone would acknowledge that Elizabeth had unfortunate beliefs about Martha's character.

That's an interesting way of putting it. What do you mean by "unfortunate"?

It should also be acknowledged that Martha and her parents undoubtedly had the same kinds of unfavorable opinions about Elizabeth's character.

Do you have evidence that Martha and her parents said or did anything to impugn Elizabeth's character?

I agree that Elizabeth's testimony has to be taken seriously. All evidence should always be taken seriously.

Seriously enough to listen to what she had to say in regard to her own sister?

However, Elizabeth's affidavit makes no mention of Bennett nor of any potential influence he might have had over Martha.

Martha and her family moved to St. Louis. Shortly after her arrival, in July 1842, John C. Bennett met with Martha Brotherton solicited her affidavit detailing her experiences with Joseph Smith and the church's leaders. He was already there. Elizabeth Brotherton and Mary McIlwrick, Martha’s sisters, later swore and subscribed their affidavits defending Joseph Smith and attacking Martha's credibility on August 27, 1842.

AFTER Martha's affidavit.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

Yes, I think that everyone would acknowledge that Elizabeth had unfortunate beliefs about Martha's character. It should also be acknowledged that Martha and her parents undoubtedly had the same kinds of unfavorable opinions about Elizabeth's character.

I agree that Elizabeth's testimony has to be taken seriously. All evidence should always be taken seriously. However, Elizabeth's affidavit makes no mention of Bennett nor of any potential influence he might have had over Martha. In spite of this, for some reason, you continue to suggest that this must be the case. You continue in your theory that since Martha turned down Brigham's advances and went public about them, that she must have been under the influence of evil--and under the influence of Bennett. You've got to be kidding.

In defaming Martha, you're doing the same sort of thing, now, that Joseph's crowd did, then, to those who spurned Smith's sexual advances. I think you're wrong to do this. No one is slut-shaming Elizabeth. You need not do so to Martha.

Thank you, Morley. I had come to a similar conclusion about MG’s argument, but it has been so muddled that I was uncertain of the point.

I agree, Morley unpacked it very well. The sentence for me that gets right to the heart of the matter is this:

...In spite of this, for some reason, you continue to suggest that this must be the case...

There has been so much insupportable innuendo offered up by MG over the years, it's no wonder Everybody Wang Chung just calls him a fibber, now. There's only so much one can take of that type of argument.

Funny anecdote, during the Hamblin-Jenkins debate, MG stated that Jenkins' positions and arguments could not be taken seriously, because MG knew for a fact he was "biased." After pages and pages of innuendo about this alleged bias, it finally comes out that MG just assumed Jenkins was biased because he has a religious background. When it was pointed out that Hamblin also had a religious background and therefore could also be assumed to be biased, MG said no, because Hamblin's religion was the right one and Jenkin's was the wrong one. (!!!!!!!!!!) It was a comedy of ridiculous errors and botched argument and sliding innuendo and so many, many layers of Motte and Bailey fallacies that it took several dozen pages just to get back to the debate Jenkins and Hamblin were literally having. All over sly innuendos that had no basis in anything factual, but were borne only and just of the bigotry in a certain gymnast's shallow mind.