Joseph Smith believed all sects were false

[_Jason Bourne]

Since you are again continuuing to employ ad hominem, I might consider moving some of these post to the upper forum. I haven't decided. I might respond in here, I don't know. But it appears given posts in this thread by Mormons they are unable to tolerate criticisms of Smith and so they resort to posts such as ad hominem, testimony bearing, irrelevant off topic posts and even harrassment.

Zzzzzzzzzzz.......But again you misread me like you did DV. I have criticized Smith in some ways and I do not bear testimony here at all. And once again you are doing ad hominem.

I don't think it's unusual. It's typical behavior of well indoctrinated members of cults.

Can you say pot calling kettle?

Now I did give you some substance. I am willing to move past this. So address it if you will.

[_marg]

You seem to be operating under the premise that I am here to defend Joseph Smith. Check your premises, they are flawed. I am here to engage in rational dialogue. Talking about my beliefs regarding someone else's beliefs is engaging in the highest degree of speculation. I prefer to examine evidence, and see where the evidence leads. I noticed that you have a tone that you use with posters such as Liz and Bourne, and that you have made a feeble attempt to use with me. Is this your modus operandi? Make feeble attempts to intimidate others on the internet? If so, it is a meaningless pursuit that will not win you friends or make you very happy.

I don't have time for this nonsense.

I disengaged from our last conversation because you blatantly exaggerated many points, confused the issues, and basically degraded the entire dialogue into an emotional diatribe of convoluted concepts. At that point I disengaged by stating to you "Whatever" because I realized that no matter how many points I made, and no matter how I treated you, you would dig in your heals and choose to reinforce your own confirmation bias, rather than engage in mutual dialogue.

whatever

You disengaged from the thread the same way, with Wade Englund over on the Joseph Smith Conspiracy thread: marg: ]While others may play your game Wade...I'm not interested. I'll let your posts stand or fall on their own as to whether or not you indicate intellectual dishonesty in your argumentation.

I've had many dealing with Wade in the past, I've observed many dealings of Wade with others...in that particular thread I elected to leave it to others both those who read the thread and those who continue to participate with him. I tend to engage with those in which I think it will be productive and ignore or disengage with those I think it will be a waste of time, or if I just don't have the patience. If I spent any time at all in a discussion with anyone, it general means I have some respect for them. If I carry on a conversation ..I'm spending my time.

previously I wrote: Added note: it is a waste of time, arguing with individuals who are intellectually dishonest.

Your accusations remind me of quite a few interactions I've had with the TBM posters on the FAIR/MAD board, BCC, M* and others. Sometimes it is a waste of time to discuss concepts with individuals who are not open to a rational objective discussion. I don't mind talking with you about Mormon issues, if you will actually discuss things rationally rather than emotionally. Are you capable of that?

What accusations? In any discussion it is a complete waste of time if one party is into game playing, being disingenous and/or intellectually dishonest. Fruitful discussions require honesty and sincerity.

As to whether Joseph Smith was a conman regarding his many money digging adventures, I don't think you are off the mark. Joseph Smith told his FIL that the stone in a hat trick was a farce, and that he didn't actually see anything in the rock. I tend to think that because the Smith family was extremely poor, and couldn't even provide the basic necessities for life and sustenance, that Joseph Smith would do his magic tricks for a fee, or for the free lamb that was provided as the sacrificial lamb to the treasure guardians.

All of this I'm in agreement and the information I'm aware of, including the free lamb.

He came up with the con in order to survive. It seems logical that if he was able to concoct a scheme that would earn him some money, or get them some free food, and his abject poverty created a sense of urgency, that he did con people out of their money looking for treasure that didn't exist.

Now you are discussing the ethical issues. I think J. Smith was justified in the early day cons..for survival. Later on, the whole Mormonism hoax, I don't think he was ethical.

However, your argument doesn't stop there. You want to make the logical leap that if Joseph Smith was a conman, then there is no way that God would use him as a prophet. It is a very tempting conceptual path to take. It seems reasonable.

DV..I don't make that logical leap. I don't assume a God..ever. Even if Smith wasn't a con artist, if I assume he was just a completely honest, highly moral individual ..I wouldn't assume god in this at all. What I presented here was that I have thought previously he was likely atheist, perhaps a deist. and I have nothing against either.

But could someone who was a conman not be used by a higher power in some way.

There you go assuming a higher power. First you need to present evidence for a higher power before I will allow that assumption.

I'd like to see you introduce evidence that BECAUSE Joseph Smith was a conman that this therefore disqualified him, and he COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE A PROPHET IN ANY SENSE OF THE WORD.

huh? The burden of proof for prophets existing..that is men who commune with God is on those who make the claim. What the conman evidence means to me is that his behavior in the early days is a predictor of his behavior later. Did you read the article on psychology of con artists. It mentions money is the typical motivator but as a con artist gets more experience and skilled...the con becomes more than money..it becomes the thrill of the con itself, of manipulating people, of being supreme over others of building ones ego, of enjoying the power. Smith's early days were an indication of his later mental frame of mind and reasons for continuuing on with conning people.

Now that would be a good conversation. I don't think that you can do it without becoming emotional again, or engaging in insulting dialouge, but I would like to see you try. It would be nice to have discourse with you in a rational way. We are not so different, you and I.

DV, sometimes on MB's people can anger me but rarely does that happen. I was angry at liz's post. No one else angered me in this thread. Bourne I pretty much dismiss, his comments mean virtually nothing to me. Most of my exchanges with people tend to be honest, non emotional, unfriendly for a reason. I don't post to make friends. I want to be able to be as objective and honest as possible. I only have respect for people who are honest and (self) intellectually honest. I will not post on any message board which has biased moderating such that people can not be honest for fear of interference by a mod. At the same time, I do my best to be respectful and not resort to ad hominem fallacies.



-DV[/quote][/quote]

[_marg]

Now I did give you some substance. I am willing to move past this. So address it if you will.

I'm not willing Bourne, I'm not willing to spend time discussing with you. Well at least at this particular point in time. I only carry on conversations with people I respect.

[_Jason Bourne]

Now I did give you some substance. I am willing to move past this. So address it if you will.

I'm not willing Bourne, I'm not willing to spend time discussing with you. Well at least at this particular point in time. I only carry on conversations with people I respect.

Well bully for you margie pooh.

I certainly don't respect you. I think you are a blow hard as well as a pompous and rude ass.

I will take that as a concession that frankly, your premise on this thread is all wet. And I will also, as I have already figured based on other conclusions you make and applying critical thinking to those conclusions, make a conclusion that you are poorly read in things about LDS history as well as what Smith himself wrote. And yes marg, it does have a bearing on what you think, conclude and attempt to apply your critical thinking too. If you want to declare Smith as disregarding a God you need to get inside his mind the best you can. To do that, you need to read what he wrote. It seems you have done little if any of that.

I however, will continue to point out your flawed critical thinking as I have done on this thread with just one revelation from Smith that debunks your whole theory.


Tah, tah and boo hoo.

[_Dr. Shades]

Also Grampa75 please do not respond with your testimony of your faith, please stick with the issues presented and address contents of post to which you are replying using your "reasoning".

This is a freedom of speech zone. If Grampa75 wants to bear his testimony, he is welcome to do so. This is not strictly a debate forum. All opinions and insights are welcome here.

[MODERATOR POST: It appears as though we moderators misunderstood marg's intent. We thought marg was trying to "backseat moderate" Grampa75's style on the entire message board, whereas marg has clarified that she was only requesting a certain form of response within this single thread which she started.

I apologize for any misunderstandings. Marg is within her rights to make such a request within her own thread, so please adhere to her wishes, viz. no testimony-bearing in this thread (whereas testimony-bearing is perfectly okay elsewhere).

Now back to your regularly-scheduled programming.]

[_marg]

You seem to be operating under the premise that I am here to defend Joseph Smith. Check your premises, they are flawed.

I don't have a perception of what you think of Smith. The perception I have of you from my memory which isn't that great is that you were defending polygamy and weren't objective. Now you may have been playing devil's advocate, but I can't sort that out or assume something, I can only go by what you write.

Talking about my beliefs regarding someone else's beliefs is engaging in the highest degree of speculation. I prefer to examine evidence, and see where the evidence leads. I noticed that you have a tone that you use with posters such as Liz and Bourne, and that you have made a feeble attempt to use with me. Is this your modus operandi? Make feeble attempts to intimidate others on the internet? If so, it is a meaningless pursuit that will not win you friends or make you very happy.

I was annoyed with Liz's post because in my opinion it gave the impression it's okay for anyone to post whatever they like in the thread even if off topic. Bourne still has that impression..that it's okay to say whatever he wants to the point of attempting to harass. So rather than her post improving the quality of the contents in this thread it likely had the opposite affect. Bourne I've pretty much ignored..and have had no particularly tone other than to dismiss him.

I disengaged from our last conversation because you blatantly exaggerated many points, confused the issues, and basically degraded the entire dialogue into an emotional diatribe of convoluted concepts. At that point I disengaged by stating to you "Whatever" because I realized that no matter how many points I made, and no matter how I treated you, you would dig in your heals and choose to reinforce your own confirmation bias, rather than engage in mutual dialogue.

You were cocky in your first post...throwing out many swear words, off color language. And you remarked to someone in anger..you weren't a typical TBM. I view TBM's..as lacking critical thinking applied to their religious beliefs. I found your remarks regarding polygamy lacked critical thinking. But I had every intention of giving you a fair opportunity to show me I was wrong. You didn't. From memory I think your post focussed on you, on me..and not on showing how or why you were not a typical TBM.

However, your argument doesn't stop there. You want to make the logical leap that if Joseph Smith was a conman, then there is no way that God would use him as a prophet.

I have no interest in this thread in attempting to prove J. Smith was not a prophet. The burden of proof on whether Smith was a prophet rests with those making the claim. I'm not aware of anyone having met that burden and don't expect anyone ever will. So I dismiss the claim. But no one has brought that claim up in this thread.

It is a very tempting conceptual path to take. It seems reasonable. But could someone who was a conman not be used by a higher power in some way.

Burden of proof rests with those who would make the claim associated with any interfering God.

I'd like to see you introduce evidence that BECAUSE Joseph Smith was a conman that this therefore disqualified him, and he COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE A PROPHET IN ANY SENSE OF THE WORD. Now that would be a good conversation. I don't think that you can do it without becoming emotional again, or engaging in insulting dialouge, but I would like to see you try. It would be nice to have discourse with you in a rational way. We are not so different, you and I.

You are talking like a TBM again. That's my impression. Only a strong believer would be interested in placing the burden of proof onto those who don't acknowledge Smith was a prophet. His young cona rtist years are a good resource for insight into his later con artist Mormonism years. Smith acknowledged to only a few, but not his marks, that he was conning people with "underground treasure seeking." He was able to keep up the treasure seeking con with his marks for 3 years or so without ever informing them otherwise.

I repeated my response to you...because this morning I lacked patience. I probably have repeated some comments/ideas.

[_marg]

[MODERATOR POST: Marg is within her rights to make such a request within her own thread, so please adhere to her wishes, viz. no testimony-bearing in this thread (whereas testimony-bearing is perfectly okay elsewhere).

It's not just a matter of this thread Shades, if someone posts a reply to someone else..and in that reply they don't address the content of what they are replying to, it is should be within anyone's right to comment in response that the post didn't address content and to please next time do so. It simply is not acceptable for a moderator under those circumstances to counter that request and say it's a free speech zone..anything goes.

[_Jersey Girl]

At the risk of further derailment, I'm going to respond to this one minor thinly disguised ad hom comment:

desert vulture to marg

I don't mind talking with you about Mormon issues, if you will actually discuss things rationally rather than emotionally. Are you capable of that?

dv,

I'd like you to link me to any post made by marg on this board or any other board that represents her discussing things "emotionally". If you're able to do so, it will be the first time I've witnessed emotion driven content on the part of marg in several years of reading her.

Let's see it.

Jersey Girl

[_Jason Bourne]

dv,

I'd like you to link me to any post made by marg on this board or any other board that represents her discussing things "emotionally". If you're able to do so, it will be the first time I've witnessed emotion driven content on the part of marg in several years of reading her.

Let's see it.

Here you go Jersey Girl

I wrote to the supposedly stable and unemotional marg this:

Jason Bourne wrote:

Not ad hominem at all marg. Facts. You are a bully to people. You bullied liz and gramps 76.

I then offered this:

So, let's move on. I gave you some substance. Address it. And tell us what you have read. That is not ad hominem and is pertinant to the discussion.

And she said this:

Since you are again continuuing to employ ad hominem, I might consider moving some of these post to the upper forum. I haven't decided. I might respond in here, I don't know. But it appears given posts in this thread by Mormons they are unable to tolerate criticisms of Smith and so they resort to posts such as ad hominem, testimony bearing, irrelevant off topic posts and even harrassment.

I don't think it's unusual. It's typical behavior of well indoctrinated members of cults.

If this is not emotional as well as ad hominem I don't know what is. Marg often drops into this behavior. She is also demanding and rude in almost every thread she is on. I challenged her on what she had read that Smith had written due because it is a key to understanding the man and her theory here that he believed in a non interfering God. She called that ad hominem. It was not. It was pertinent to the discussion. I pointed out that she is a bore when she bullied liz and yes that was ad hominem, emotional and true.. She then says that she won't debate with me and now "dimisses" me.

Ok. But this is all emotional. I was willing to move on, went back and made posted some responses that she could have worked with. But instead she retreats to pouting or putting on an air of "I am too rational and too much of a critial thinker to debate with you irrational cultist. That is emotional as well.

I see this quite often. Miss marg is not at all the even thinker you think she is.

Tah, tah.

[_Yoda]

[MODERATOR POST: Marg is within her rights to make such a request within her own thread, so please adhere to her wishes, viz. no testimony-bearing in this thread (whereas testimony-bearing is perfectly okay elsewhere).

It's not just a matter of this thread Shades, if someone posts a reply to someone else..and in that reply they don't address the content of what they are replying to, it is should be within anyone's right to comment in response that the post didn't address content and to please next time do so. It simply is not acceptable for a moderator under those circumstances to counter that request and say it's a free speech zone..anything goes.

Grampa75 is a new poster. From how you addressed him, it appeared that it was completely inappropriate for him to respond the way he did, and even intimated that it was not allowed.

Now, I admit...if Mak or Gaz had posted the same thing, I probably wouldn't have said anything...because they would have countered the way they saw fit. And, frankly, their counter to you, right or wrong, may have been that their testimony was their proof, and they stand by it.

You can't control how others respond to you. You can, however, set limits of the types of responses you would like to see happen in a thread that you start. And for that, I admit, I crossed the line.

As I stated earlier, my intent was not to hurt you or disrespect you. My intent was to protect a new poster. I apologize for the misunderstanding.