Are we enemies?

[_Pahoran]

Do you think she really understands the nuances of the evidences involving Fanny Alger?

Much moreso than you do, it appears.

No. It does not.

Joseph used God's name to cover up his dirty little affair.

And your evidence for this is what, exactly?

That's rehensible.

Your accusation is indeed reprehensible (note the spelling.)

Joseph lied in God's name repeatedly.

No. He did not.

That's also rehensible.

Your accusation is indeed reprehensible (note the spelling.)

Were any man who claimed to be a prophet to behave similiarly, to sign God's name to a revelation he didn't approve, history would treat him the same way.

You have no evidence that God didn't approve it.

When Sec 132 is gone from the canon, the subject will be moot. Until then, it's current events and open for discussion.

I'm entirely happy with Section 132 as it stands.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_rcrocket]

That's rehensible.

Your accusation is indeed reprehensible (note the spelling.)

Now, now, Pahoran. Let them beat up Wade Englund over his spelling errors. You really can't expect people who don't read anything but the internet to be good spellers, now do you?

P

[_Pahoran]

That's rehensible.

Your accusation is indeed reprehensible (note the spelling.)

Now, now, Pahoran. Let them beat up Wade Englund over his spelling errors. You really can't expect people who don't read anything but the internet to be good spellers, now do you?

P

I guess you're right. Wade's misspellings can be parlayed into irrefutable evidence of his total idiocy and depravity, but no critic's misspellings are to be corrected, ever.

Got that.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_asbestosman]

Now, now, Pahoran. Let them beat up Wade Englund over his spelling errors. You really can't expect people who don't read anything but the internet to be good spellers, now do you?

P

I guess you're right. Wade's misspellings can be parlayed into irrefutable evidence of his total idiocy and depravity, but no critic's misspellings are to be corrected, ever.

Got that.

Regards,
Pahoran

Critics don't' misspell words. They just spell in a different dialect. Kind of like the difference between Brittish and American spelling or Jacobean and modern spelling. Such a thing could never apply to the faithful. ;)

[_harmony]

Do you think she really understands the nuances of the evidences involving Fanny Alger?

Much moreso than you do, it appears.

No. It does not.

Yes, it does.

Joseph used God's name to cover up his dirty little affair.

And your evidence for this is what, exactly?

Sex 132.

That's rehensible.

Your accusation is indeed reprehensible (note the spelling.)

Spelling is optional and highly overrated. Based on your reply (such as it is), you obviously knew what I meant, therefore I got my point across.

Joseph lied in God's name repeatedly.

No. He did not.

Yes, he did. And so are you, since you know good and well he did.

That's also rehensible.

Your accusation is indeed reprehensible (note the spelling.)

Again, you obviously know what I was getting at, so my spelling is immaterial.

Were any man who claimed to be a prophet to behave similiarly, to sign God's name to a revelation he didn't approve, history would treat him the same way.

You have no evidence that God didn't approve it.

You have no evidence that he did (or does).

When Sec 132 is gone from the canon, the subject will be moot. Until then, it's current events and open for discussion.

I'm entirely happy with Section 132 as it stands.

That does not surprise me. However, we aren't talking about your happiness. We're discussing Joseph inventing a revelation to cover his adultery, and the resulting his loss of his prophethood.

[_Yoda]

I guess you're right. Wade's misspellings can be parlayed into irrefutable evidence of his total idiocy and depravity, but no critic's misspellings are to be corrected, ever.

Got that.

Regards,
Pahoran

Deleted---This was a snipey comment about Wade. I apologize. It was immature and unwarranted.

To be honest, if an argument is well-thought-out, minor misspellings don't bother me when reading arguments on either side of the aisle. I've found that I rely on spell check A LOT more than I used to. It's like using a calculator instead of using your memorized addition, subtraction, and multiplication facts.

Grammatical errors are my personal pet peeve. I suppose we each have our own. LOL ;)

[_Runtu]

I guess you're right. Wade's misspellings can be parlayed into irrefutable evidence of his total idiocy and depravity, but no critic's misspellings are to be corrected, ever.

Got that.

Regards,
Pahoran

Actually, Pahoran, Wade's posts were parlayed into irrefutable evidence of his total idiocy and depravity. His misspellings and misuse of words were simply icing on the cake.

To be honest, if an argument is well-thought-out, minor misspellings don't bother me when reading arguments on either side of the aisle. I've found that I rely on spell check A LOT more than I used to. It's like using a calculator instead of using your memorized addition, subtraction, and multiplication facts.

Grammatical errors are my personal pet peeve. I suppose we each have our own. LOL ;)

Exactly. If an argument is substantive, a typo isn't going to detract from it.

[_asbestosman]

Exactly. If an argument is substantive, a typo isn't going to detract from it.

Actually it can. I remember receiving a letter on my mission from a friend. I told her how hard it was and she wrote back that, "our trials that make us sore."

At the time I could hardly agree more. At least it made me feel better. I still get some good chuckles from that one (she was a notoriously bad speller).

[_Pahoran]

Do you think she really understands the nuances of the evidences involving Fanny Alger?

Much moreso than you do, it appears.

No. It does not.

Yes, it does.

No, it does not. You have yet to demonstrate that you have the slightest understanding of any past event that took place anywhere, ever.

Joseph used God's name to cover up his dirty little affair.

And your evidence for this is what, exactly?

Sex 132.

Was that a typo, or did you do that on purpose? Knowing how particularly low your mind is, I suspect the latter.

Section 132 is one of the Saints' most precious possessions. It lays out the highest and holiest of the revelations, namely, Celestial Marriage. The notion that it is merely some kind of "cover-up" is disgusting, ugly and filthy.

Joseph lied in God's name repeatedly.

No. He did not.

Yes, he did. And so are you, since you know good and well he did.

I know no such thing. Just because I am aware of the content of your vicious hate propaganda does not mean that I believe it.

Your ability to engage in civilised discourse continues to be hampered by your inability to grasp the fact that your jaundiced, low-minded opinions are not self-evidently true to everyone else. Not only is it possible for an honest, informed person to disagree with you, it is virtually impossible for an honest, informed person to agree with you.

Were any man who claimed to be a prophet to behave similiarly, to sign God's name to a revelation he didn't approve, history would treat him the same way.

You have no evidence that God didn't approve it.

You have no evidence that he did (or does).

Having a rather retentive memory, and having forgotten more about it than you are ever likely to know, I am fully satisfied that he did and does.

When Sec 132 is gone from the canon, the subject will be moot. Until then, it's current events and open for discussion.

I'm entirely happy with Section 132 as it stands.

That does not surprise me. However, we aren't talking about your happiness. We're discussing Joseph inventing a revelation to cover his adultery, and the resulting his loss of his prophethood.

Which is an evil fiction that exists only in certain diseased minds. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the faith of the Latter-day Saints.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_harmony]

Do you think she really understands the nuances of the evidences involving Fanny Alger?

Much moreso than you do, it appears.

No. It does not.

Yes, it does.

No, it does not. You have yet to demonstrate that you have the slightest understanding of any past event that took place anywhere, ever.

Pahoran, we aren't talking about me, remember? My understanding, my behavior, my allegiances are not the subject we're discussing. Shift your focus, man! I am not the subject of this discussion; Joseph is, Joseph's behavior is, the impact of Joseph's behavior is.

We're talking about Joseph's dirty lil affair with Fanny. You have yet to demonstrate why you think it should not be characterized as his dirty lil affair (ala Oliver, his friend and contemporary). I don't have to have anything other than the normal understanding of the event, since Oliver, Joseph's friend and contemporary, is the one who characterized it as a dirty little affair. Argue with Oliver, not me. Show us why we shouldn't take Oliver's characterization as truth. Show us why we should not believe that Joseph lied repeatedly about his involvement in plural marriage, since we can read his statements for ourselves in the contemporary newspaper.

Joseph used God's name to cover up his dirty little affair.

And your evidence for this is what, exactly?

Sex 132.

Was that a typo, or did you do that on purpose? Knowing how particularly low your mind is, I suspect the latter.

Knowing how you choose to characterize your opponents, I'm not surprised.

Section 132 is one of the Saints' most precious possessions. It lays out the highest and holiest of the revelations, namely, Celestial Marriage. The notion that it is merely some kind of "cover-up" is disgusting, ugly and filthy.

Well, for that you can blame Joseph. He's the one who has no witnesses for this revelation, no collaboration, no supporting evidence. He wrote it, long after his "dirty little affair" with Fanny was discovered, under suspicious circumstances, when he was getting pressured from Emma and his family. And Emma was so excited about it when she first read it, she burned it.

Joseph lied in God's name repeatedly.

No. He did not.

Yes, he did. And so are you, since you know good and well he did.

I know no such thing. Just because I am aware of the content of your vicious hate propaganda does not mean that I believe it.

It's not my vicious hate propoganda, Pahoran. It's Joseph's words, and the words of Joseph's contemporaries. You are the one ratcheting up the rhetoric, not me.

Your ability to engage in civilised discourse continues to be hampered by your inability to grasp the fact that your jaundiced, low-minded opinions are not self-evidently true to everyone else. Not only is it possible for an honest, informed person to disagree with you, it is virtually impossible for an honest, informed person to agree with you.

Self-evident? Pahoran, you wouldn't know self-evident if it bit you on the nose. You deliberately ignore any and all evidence that does not support your world view. Don't talk to me about self-evident, when you have no grasp of the evidence at all.

Were any man who claimed to be a prophet to behave similiarly, to sign God's name to a revelation he didn't approve, history would treat him the same way.

You have no evidence that God didn't approve it.

You have no evidence that he did (or does).

Having a rather retentive memory, and having forgotten more about it than you are ever likely to know, I am fully satisfied that he did and does.

And I, on the other hand, have had confirmation from the initial source that indeed, he does not.

When Sec 132 is gone from the canon, the subject will be moot. Until then, it's current events and open for discussion.

I'm entirely happy with Section 132 as it stands.

That does not surprise me. However, we aren't talking about your happiness. We're discussing Joseph inventing a revelation to cover his adultery, and the resulting his loss of his prophethood.

Which is an evil fiction that exists only in certain diseased minds. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the faith of the Latter-day Saints.

Oh, now anyone who disagrees with you has a diseased mind? You choose to move the discussion to the literal, and away from the figuretive? You are not the spokesperson for the Latter-day Saints, Pahoran. Speak only for yourself. You don't know squat about the faith of the LDS. For the most part, the faith of the LDS doesn't exist, since we know the retention rates and number of full-tithe payers is miniscule in comparison to the official count on the books. So don't go talking like you know what you don't know, because not only do you not know, but no one else does either. I repeat: the books aren't open. So you don't know anything about the Latter-day Saints. No one does.