FAIR Journal - Message from Gordy

[_Zoidberg]

I think it means there are crackpots and yahoos with old rehashed anti-Mormon arguments, and there are those who are NOT crackpots and yahoos. It seems logical to me that only those who think they are crackpots and yahoos have any call at all to be offeneded. Thus self-identification plays a part in being offended.

Says charity who is always complaining about people telling her what she thinks. I very rarely get offended, and when I do, I don't make a big deal about it, unlike you. Some things piss me off, though, one of them being your complete denial of reality. You make a claim that FAIRites don't engage in smug dismissals - I give you a quote that begs to differ. How is giving you that quote equal being offended on my part? Please explain.

You keep asserting my self-identification as a crackpot and yahoo while simultaneously reminding everyone how polite you are, unlike the people here. Of course, saying that someone self-identifies as an idiot or wants to bang multiple people is a totally different thing than calling them an idiot or a sex addict. Heaven and earth.

You can say whatever you want about me, just don't pretend to be this polite and nice Ms. Molly Mormon.

[_guy sajer]

I think it means there are crackpots and yahoos with old rehashed anti-Mormon arguments, and there are those who are NOT crackpots and yahoos. It seems logical to me that only those who think they are crackpots and yahoos have any call at all to be offeneded. Thus self-identification plays a part in being offended.

I'm wondering, Charity, what are the old rehashed anit-Mormon arguments to which you refer and what (and where) is the evidence that proves them bogus?

Further, which of those arguments are contributors to this board rehashing?

[_charity]

I think it means there are crackpots and yahoos with old rehashed anti-Mormon arguments, and there are those who are NOT crackpots and yahoos. It seems logical to me that only those who think they are crackpots and yahoos have any call at all to be offeneded. Thus self-identification plays a part in being offended.

I'm wondering, Charity, what are the old rehashed anit-Mormon arguments to which you refer and what (and where) is the evidence that proves them bogus?

Further, which of those arguments are contributors to this board rehashing?

That is an attempt to derail this thread. When the old rehashed anti-Mormon arguments show us as a topic, I will join in, if I find the OP inviting.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I haven't seen the one from Marinda Hyde. Can you post?

As far as I know, Marinda did not make out an affidavit -- my reference to affidavits was to the several plural wives of Joseph Smith who did execute an affidavit (in response to charity's claim there is no evidence that Joseph Smith had sex with any plural wife, which clearly is false).

Or the affidavit of any woman who was married to another man?

We have the affidavit of Josephine Fisher that her mother, Sylvia Sessions Lyon (a polyandrous wife to Joseph Smith), told her she was the daughter of Joseph Smith. And Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner (another polyandrous wife of Joseph Smith) stated to a BYU crowd that she knew of plural wives who had children by Joseph Smith but grew up going by other names (which strongly suggests the mother was married to another man); in 1902 Lightner said in a statement that BY sealed her and Joseph Smith for time and all eternity. Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs also said in an interview that she was married for time and all eternity to Joseph Smith. And let's not forget that in the early days of polygamy, polyandry was the norm: 9 of Joseph's first 12 plural marriages were to women already married to another.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I can deal with both Hyde and Zina, but first I want Rollo to support the claim that Hyde made an affidavit.

I never said she did. Go back and read my post -- my statement regarding the affidavits was in response to charity's claim that there is no evidence that Joseph Smith had sex with any plural wife. The affidavits show this claim to be blatantly false.

[_rcrocket]

I haven't seen the one from Marinda Hyde. Can you post?

As far as I know, Marinda did not make out an affidavit -- my reference to affidavits was to the several plural wives of Joseph Smith who did execute an affidavit (in response to charity's claim there is no evidence that Joseph Smith had sex with any plural wife, which clearly is false).

Or the affidavit of any woman who was married to another man?

We have the affidavit of Josephine Fisher that her mother, Sylvia Sessions Lyon (a polyandrous wife to Joseph Smith), told her she was the daughter of Joseph Smith. And Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner (another polyandrous wife of Joseph Smith) stated to a BYU crowd that she knew of plural wives who had children by Joseph Smith but grew up going by other names (which strongly suggests the mother was married to another man); in 1902 Lightner said in a statement that BY sealed her and Joseph Smith for time and all eternity. Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs also said in an interview that she was married for time and all eternity to Joseph Smith. And let's not forget that in the early days of polygamy, polyandry was the norm: 9 of Joseph's first 12 plural marriages were to women already married to another.

So, we have affidavits from women who said they were wives of Joseph Smith (and I don't dispute them), but none from women who claimed to be married to other men and having connubial relations with Joseph Smith and another man at the same time? I wonder why that would be?

More later. Start another thread.

And, all the mocking derision heaped my way from others about my "testimony" and motivations will be ignored as I choose to pursue just the historical facts. I hope tht will be ok with you.


rcrocket

[_Mercury]

I haven't seen the one from Marinda Hyde. Can you post?

As far as I know, Marinda did not make out an affidavit -- my reference to affidavits was to the several plural wives of Joseph Smith who did execute an affidavit (in response to charity's claim there is no evidence that Joseph Smith had sex with any plural wife, which clearly is false).

Or the affidavit of any woman who was married to another man?

We have the affidavit of Josephine Fisher that her mother, Sylvia Sessions Lyon (a polyandrous wife to Joseph Smith), told her she was the daughter of Joseph Smith. And Mary Elizabeth Rollins Lightner (another polyandrous wife of Joseph Smith) stated to a BYU crowd that she knew of plural wives who had children by Joseph Smith but grew up going by other names (which strongly suggests the mother was married to another man); in 1902 Lightner said in a statement that BY sealed her and Joseph Smith for time and all eternity. Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs also said in an interview that she was married for time and all eternity to Joseph Smith. And let's not forget that in the early days of polygamy, polyandry was the norm: 9 of Joseph's first 12 plural marriages were to women already married to another.

So, we have affidavits from women who said they were wives of Joseph Smith (and I don't dispute them), but none from women who claimed to be married to other men and having connubial relations with Joseph Smith and another man at the same time? I wonder why that would be?

More later. Start another thread.

rcrocket

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What does it take for you to accept that Joe boinked these victims?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

So, we have affidavits from women who said they were wives of Joseph Smith (and I don't dispute them), but none from women who claimed to be married to other men and having connubial relations with Joseph Smith and another man at the same time?

We have the affidavit of Josephine Fisher, whose polyandrous mother told her she was the daughter of Joseph Smith. We also have the public statement of another polyandrous wife saying she knew of several children fathered by Joseph Smith but who were growing up with another name -- do you believe Sister Lightner was lying?

[_charity]

I think it means there are crackpots and yahoos with old rehashed anti-Mormon arguments, and there are those who are NOT crackpots and yahoos. It seems logical to me that only those who think they are crackpots and yahoos have any call at all to be offeneded. Thus self-identification plays a part in being offended.

Says charity who is always complaining about people telling her what she thinks. I very rarely get offended, and when I do, I don't make a big deal about it, unlike you. Some things piss me off, though, one of them being your complete denial of reality. You make a claim that FAIRites don't engage in smug dismissals - I give you a quote that begs to differ. How is giving you that quote equal being offended on my part? Please explain.

You keep asserting my self-identification as a crackpot and yahoo while simultaneously reminding everyone how polite you are, unlike the people here. Of course, saying that someone self-identifies as an idiot or wants to bang multiple people is a totally different thing than calling them an idiot or a sex addict. Heaven and earth.

You can say whatever you want about me, just don't pretend to be this polite and nice Ms. Molly Mormon.

I am really at a loss to understand the criticism here. Do you think there are any crackpot yahoo anti-Mormons out there? Or are all anti-Mormons automatically endowed with all the good qualities of logical thought? So inclusion in the anti-Mormon group blends you all into one pureed mess? All for one, and one for all, and that kind of thing?

Can you admit there are anti-Mormons out there you wouldn't want to invite into your living room? Some real crackpot, yahoos? If not, why not? Every group has crackpots.

I will tell you I think there are crackpot yahoo Mormons. So what? Now if someone starts to say things about these CY Mormons, I don't jump in, get all twisted around, and start whining about being criticized because, since I am not one of them, and the criticism obviously isn't aimed at me.



I don't see why you, and others who took this statement and were offended by it, don't have the same attitude.

[_John Larsen]

Forget about the sex. After creating a religion in which obedience to God’s commandments and receiving saving ordinances was requisite to getting into heaven, Joseph introduced a new system. Simply by being sealed to a Church authority and no other action, one could insure salvation for oneself and family. This fact is established beyond refutation.

Isn’t this sufficient to dismiss the man as a prophet? The sex part is irrelevant.

John