Joseph Smith believed all sects were false

[_why me]

whyme, what criticism has there been of his name? Marg was kind enough to point out to him that his name was very similar to mine, and that it seemed a little disingenuous to be using it, if he knew he was doing that (trading off mine).

For which, I thank you marg.

It appears grampa75 doesn't care. Whatever. I'm quite sure noone is going to be thinking that it's me quoting scriptures warning people of being destroyed off the earth (and seemingly relishing it). Welcome (again) grampa75

Well, it was assumed by marg that grampa was using a variation of your name without realizing that granpa75 just may be a grandpa and 75 years old.

However, that being said, there has been references here that Joseph Smith was something that he was not: a pathological liar. I find it strange that people still assume the worse and not the best. Unfortunately the man is now dead. But I am sure that if were alive, he would address such claims. And in fact, it was Joseph Smith himself who made a claim that his name would be said with two opposite poles in mind: with disdain and with respect. At least he got that right, among other things.

[_marg]

As far as my second remark....it was not my intention to be rude, or to offend you, but I do stand by what I stated. Shades has tried to create an atmosphere of free speech. We don't have any right or wrong rules here about how to debate a topic, or discuss a topic. This is a discussion board, not a debate board. Opinions from both sides of the aisle are fair game.

I understand Shade's concept very well, which is why I can have this conversation with you. Your intent may not have been to be rude or offend but just the same your remark was disrespectful to me as you were countering my request to Grampa75. If Grampa 75 was on topic and had addressed what I or someone else said and then I told him to get out of the thread, you'd have had had good reason to interject with your remark. But your remark was completely uncalled for.

Thanks for your explanation for why you went into explanation regarding recopying posts..it now makes sense.

[_marg]

However, that being said, there has been references here that Joseph Smith was something that he was not: a pathological liar. I find it strange that people still assume the worse and not the best. Unfortunately the man is now dead. But I am sure that if were alive, he would address such claims. And in fact, it was Joseph Smith himself who made a claim that his name would be said with two opposite poles in mind: with disdain and with respect. At least he got that right, among other things.

Are you saying that it is a false claim...that J. Smith employed for many years "head in the hat with a seer stone" to find treasures under ground? Do you think he could actually find treasures using such a technique, that it was legitimate? Do you recognize this activity as a con on marks...or not?

[_Jason Bourne]

I see you ignored my question about the Book of Mormon?

So let's look at your questions. "What ideas are so absurd to you? Have you read the Book of Mormon? "

I'm wondering why you are asking me these questions. Are you suggesting to me, that you don't appreciate any ideas in the Book of Mormon as absurd..magical thinking sort of stuff? Do you think that it's necessary to have read the Book of Mormon from beginning to end in order to appreciate any ideas as absurd if pointed out?

While I'm at it I have a few more questions. Do you think J. Smith was a sincere con man with his night time head in the hat treasure seeking activity. By that I mean to you think he truly believed he had the capability of finding treasure underground by the manner he employed? How long did J. Smith conduct this night time treasure seeking activity for? Do you think his family and friends didn't appreciate it was a con? Do you think there might have been some other benefit besides payment from his marks for this treasure seeking activity? Did Smith ever come clean about this activity being a con..if so to whom?

The reason I am asking what you have read is you apparently lack a lot of knowledge about what is contained in the books you criticize. You attempt to portray Smith as something I think his own writings as well as historical records dispute. Your whole premise in this thread would dissolve if you had read much of what I ask about. So it seem clear that you are rather ignorant of these things.

So once again I ask, and try to asnwer this time. Have you read the Book of Mormon, the D&C, POGP or any of Smith's sermons? What books or bios about LDS history have you read?

[_Jason Bourne]

As far as my second remark....it was not my intention to be rude, or to offend you, but I do stand by what I stated. Shades has tried to create an atmosphere of free speech. We don't have any right or wrong rules here about how to debate a topic, or discuss a topic. This is a discussion board, not a debate board. Opinions from both sides of the aisle are fair game.

I understand Shade's concept very well, which is why I can have this conversation with you. Your intent may not have been to be rude or offend but just the same your remark was disrespectful to me as you were countering my request to Grampa75. If Grampa 75 was on topic and had addressed what I or someone else said and then I told him to get out of the thread, you'd have had had good reason to interject with your remark. But your remark was completely uncalled for.

Thanks for your explanation for why you went into explanation regarding recopying posts..it now makes sense.

You really are an overbearing bore you know.

[_marg]

The reason I am asking what you have read is you apparently lack a lot of knowledge about what is contained in the books you criticize.

I've quoted Polmeroy Tucker who was a contempory of Smith's, knew him his family as well as a host of others involved in the early period of the inception of Mormonism. I believe he was the newspaper editor and I think I read he was even involved in the printing of the Book of Mormon. I think he is well qualified to give his assessment of J. Smith. It's an assessment I've reasoned to previously, so I found it interesting that a qualified credible contemporary of Smith observed and came to the same conclusion.

You attempt to portray Smith as something I think his own writings as well as historical records dispute. Your whole premise in this thread would dissolve if you had read much of what I ask about. So it seem clear that you are rather ignorant of these things.

What it appears Bourne is you've posted nothing more than ad hominem fallacy in this thread. I'm not the issue, if you have other sources which counter Tucker then quote them. If you have other information which counters that Smith was ever a con artist before publication of the Book of Mormon then present it. Stick with the issues.

So once again I ask, and try to asnwer this time. Have you read the Book of Mormon, the D&C, POGP or any of Smith's sermons? What books or bios about LDS history have you read?

Stick with the issues of the thread, counter with your own evidence and reasoning, and quit using ad hominem fallacy.

[_Bond...James Bond]

What it appears Bond is you've posted nothing more than ad hominem fallacy in this thread. I'm not the issue, if you have other sources which counter Tucker then quote them. If you have other information which counters Smith con artist activities before publication of the Book of Mormon then present it. Stick with the issues.

Uh, I'm Bond. He's Bourne.

[_marg]

You really are an overbearing bore you know.

Again ad hominem. That's it Jason? It's all you've got?

[_marg]

What it appears Bond is you've posted nothing more than ad hominem fallacy in this thread. I'm not the issue, if you have other sources which counter Tucker then quote them. If you have other information which counters Smith con artist activities before publication of the Book of Mormon then present it. Stick with the issues.

Uh, I'm Bond. He's Bourne.

I'm sorry I get the two of you mixed up. I'll have to make note in the future who writes what.

[_Jason Bourne]

The reason I am asking what you have read is you apparently lack a lot of knowledge about what is contained in the books you criticize.

I've quoted Polmeroy Tucker who was a contempory of Smith's, knew him his family as well as a host of others involved in the early period of the inception of Mormonism. I believe he was the newspaper editor and I think I read he was even involved in the printing of the Book of Mormon. I think he is well qualified to give his assessment of J. Smith. It's an assessment I've reasoned to previously, so I found it interesting that a qualified credible contemporary of Smith observed and came to the same conclusion.

You attempt to portray Smith as something I think his own writings as well as historical records dispute. Your whole premise in this thread would dissolve if you had read much of what I ask about. So it seem clear that you are rather ignorant of these things.

What it appears Bourne is you've posted nothing more than ad hominem fallacy in this thread. I'm not the issue, if you have other sources which counter Tucker then quote them. If you have other information which counters that Smith was ever a con artist before publication of the Book of Mormon then present it. Stick with the issues.

So once again I ask, and try to asnwer this time. Have you read the Book of Mormon, the D&C, POGP or any of Smith's sermons? What books or bios about LDS history have you read?

Stick with the issues of the thread, counter with your own evidence and reasoning, and quit using ad hominem fallacy.

What you have read is pertinent to the issues of the thread. What have you read marg. If you are going to judge Smith then what have you read that he wrote? I noted claimed revelations that censroed Smith. These put words in GOd's mouth scolding Smith. This is on point. Have you read those revelations? They seem to directly dispute your points.

So what have you read marg. Why won't you answer?