Which way did they go Joe?

[_charity]

Joseph was on trial for swindling. For promising something he couldn't deliver. He promised he could find treasure, and then he had a list of excuses as to why he couldn't deliver.

See, harmony. You just made that up. There is no testimony from anyone. There is a charge. But the record does not include any testimony at all. No one said what Joseph did or didn't do. This is the trouble with alleging there are facts. First of all, there have to be some. Second, as you just did, you assumed facts that were not there.

Where did I say there was testimony? Among the list of excuses I saw was that the treasure somehow slipped away into the earth. As if it ever existed at all? Naw. Charity, I can't believe that a woman with as much education and native intelligence as you obviously must have (no matter how deep it's buried) doesn't see a con coming. I at least have an excuse.

If there isn't testimony then what are you going on? Somebody told somebody else's third cousin that she heard a shopkeeper say. . . .? You look at the source of what little record there is of the trial and you will see it has a very quesitonable provenance. You can deal in rumor and gossip, but I thought you wanted FACTS. You don't seem to have any in this question.

Fact: One of the small pieces of recovered papyrus is a funeral poem.
Error: You assume that the small piece (the recovered papyrus are estimated at being less than 20% of the papyri which were in Joseph's possession) is the fragment from which the Book of Abraham was produced.

Then produce the rest of the papyrus. You can't. The only piece is a piece of a funeral poem. Therefore, mine is the fact, and yours is the error.

Harmony, you are having a bad day. Your arguments, while I don't generally accept them, are usually well thought out. This one is a crock. Does the fact that we don't have the Venus de Milo's arms mean she didn't have any in her original state? Think this through. There are contemporaneous accounts of the appearance of the papyri that don't match with the fragments recovered. This is pretty good evidence that they exist, whether or not they can be produced.

That which cannot be produced cannot be used as evidence. Produce what you claim exists, charity... or understand that you have no leg to stand on. The papyrus that exists is a funeral poem. (And if you want to argue Book of Abraham, I suggest Kevin Graham, but I suspect the reason why you don't take him on is because he wipes the floor with you).

I agree that the recovered fragment is a funeral poem. Duh. I have said that. What you can't prove is that this is the piece that Joseph Smith used to produce the Book of Abraham. You simply can't say, "Well, that 18% of the recovered papyri MUST be what Joseph used because that's all we have." Can't you see the idiocy of that logic? I am not going to argue the Book of Abraham with anyone who can't write a post which doesen't contain the word "idiot." Kevin's limited vocabularly is just not something I chose to deal with.

Fact: Joseph Smith practiced plural marriage as commanded by God. Whatever God commands is right.
Error: You think, but you don't know it as a fact, that God didn't really command it.

You completely changed my fact. Either stick with my fact, or admit you can't refute it. Joseph married teenagers and other men's wives. Those are facts.

Plural marraige. That's the fact. You want to intrroduce interpretation in. Marrying teenage females. Bad. My great grandmother was 14 when she married my great-grandfather about the same time period. I was 19 when I got married. Oooohhhh. Teenager. Mary the mother of Jesus is thought to have been about 13 when Jesus was born. One of my daughters married at 18. TEENAGERS! Marrying or being sealed to other men's wives? You don't know what the FACT of the situation was. All evidence is that these were not consummated relaitonships. Sealings. Ritual only. That is the fact in evidence. [/quote]

Stick to the facts, charity. We're talking about Joseph marrying teenagers and other men's wives, not your GGmother. And the fact that those already-married wives claimed marital relations in their personal journals of course has no bearing on your so-called rituals. No, of course not. Sealings alone are still despicable, charity. Don't you get that? Those husbands were married to their wives; they loved their wives; they deserved to be sealed them, not have them stolen by Joseph. Don't you get that? Have you so far gone in your worship of Joseph that you can't see how despicable a man he was?

I don't know all that occurred in the plural marriage practices in Nauvoo. Neither do you. You don't know what God commanded and what he didn't. Besides my own testimony of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, there is Brigham Young who said that Joseph was the most moral man he knew. I believe Brother Brigham and the Holy Ghost. And I believe there are a lot of people who are going to come a cropper because they vilify Joseph Smith.

2 Nephi 15:20 Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Wo unto the wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight!

None of your "facts" means anything against the Church. Your interpretations, which are in your own mind, might. But that is irrelevant.

And as long as the church has gullible members like you, the gospel of Jesus Christ will be hamstrung. This church really could be what it was supposed to be and live up to what it claims to be... but not as long as members like you stubbornly maintain the status quo.

What can the Church be without us gullible members? You mean we could say Joseph Smith was all kinds of bad person and never was a prophet, that we don't really have men who receive revelation for us, that the Church was and is sexist and racist, that practicing homosexuals should be ordained bishops and stake presidents? Then what do we get to be? Just any other apostate Christian denomination which does not have the power to save. No thanks. I prefer the true Church to some apostate, popular, version.[/quote]

Oh, no. We're not going there. I never said Joseph wasn't a prophet. I said he wasn't the lily-white almost-perfect man you worship. And I presented just a few of the many facts that exist to support my belief. You on the other hand are relying on non-existent evidence to bolster your case.

What the church could be and what the church is is two entirely different things. And that's another thread.

Obviously. We aren't as the city of Enoch yet. But it isn't the "guillible" that are the problem in the Church. It is the lukewarm, the people who want to have the approval of all those people in the "spacious building," and those who mock and ridicule men of God.

I don't worship Joseph Smith. I respect him. I think you don't know the difference between worship and respect.

[_harmony]

I agree that the recovered fragment is a funeral poem. Duh. I have said that. What you can't prove is that this is the piece that Joseph Smith used to produce the Book of Abraham. You simply can't say, "Well, that 18% of the recovered papyri MUST be what Joseph used because that's all we have." Can't you see the idiocy of that logic? I am not going to argue the Book of Abraham with anyone who can't write a post which doesen't contain the word "idiot." Kevin's limited vocabularly is just not something I chose to deal with.

How odd. I can't recall the last time Kevin called me an idiot.

You don't know that what we have isn't the all and total that Joseph had. What we do know is that what we have isn't at all related to Abraham, doesn't mention Abraham, and has nothing to do with the book that Joseph led everyone to believe was translated from that same papyrus. And there is nothing you can say that refutes that. That's a fact, charity.

I don't know all that occurred in the plural marriage practices in Nauvoo. Neither do you. You don't know what God commanded and what he didn't. Besides my own testimony of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, there is Brigham Young who said that Joseph was the most moral man he knew. I believe Brother Brigham and the Holy Ghost. And I believe there are a lot of people who are going to come a cropper because they vilify Joseph Smith.

On the contrary, Charity, my discernment and inspiration is at least the equal of yours. And I wouldn't trust Brigham as far as I could throw him. Brigham wouldn't know a moral man if he hit him over the head with a 2x4. He's the one who led the faithful thousands of miles from home and then sprung the Abomination on them.

2 Nephi 15:20 Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Wo unto the wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight!

That verse aptly describes Joseph, yes.

Let us not forget that I'm the one who doesn't rely on the arm of flesh, Charity. I'm the one who follows no man.

We aren't as the city of Enoch yet. But it isn't the "guillible" that are the problem in the Church. It is the lukewarm, the people who want to have the approval of all those people in the "spacious building," and those who mock and ridicule men of God.

I'm not sure who you're trying to finger, but that wouldn't be me. What I want is a church that doesn't prevaricate, that owns it's history, that acknowledges the mistakes of the past and apologizes, that opens lives up to its motto of family first, that puts women on an equal footing with men, that is greatly concerned about the human condition and not at all concerned about the assets it owns. Open the books; ordain women, and own the history, warts and all. To do less than that is to dishonor our ancestors and all they sacrificed.

I don't worship Joseph Smith. I respect him. I think you don't know the difference between worship and respect.

I don't respect him, that's a fact. I think he had a rare gift, and he wasted it on sex and power. And I think he'd completely approve of some of the dealings of the church in the last couple of years, which to my mind is the lowest of the low.

[_ludwigm]

I don't think Joseph's neighbors were money diggers. Just Joseph and some of his friends. You make it seem like money digging was like voting.

Pretty close to very common. This is from the Palmyra Herald newspaper of july 24, 1822. These excerpts are off the FAIR wiki (http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_and_money_digging)
"In the young Joseph Smith's time and place, "money digging" was a popular, and sometimes respected activity. When Joseph was 16, the Palmyra Herald printed such remarks as: ...

The "money digging" never was a working, real activity. It was fraud, and who committed it, knew this.
Seek hidden treasures with magic rod or with seer stone may have been popular or respected or believed but didn't ever work.

[_ludwigm]

... and fairwiki is everything but not fair.

[_charity]

You don't know that what we have isn't the all and total that Joseph had. What we do know is that what we have isn't at all related to Abraham, doesn't mention Abraham, and has nothing to do with the book that Joseph led everyone to believe was translated from that same papyrus. And there is nothing you can say that refutes that. That's a fact, charity.

Please note the following about what the papyri collection consisted of: (This is from a FARMS symposium on the Book of Abraham.

"Gee noted that although in 1967 New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art returned to the LDS Church 10 papyrus fragments from what were once three separate manuscripts, Gee summarized theories about the relationship between the Book of Abraham and the papyri, the date of the Book of AbrahJoseph Smith originally possessed at least five papyri, two of which were long rolls almost certainly destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871. The extant fragments probably amount to no more than 13 percent of what Joseph Smith once had, said Gee, who concluded that the Book of Abraham was translated from a part of the papyri that is now missing.

I don't know all that occurred in the plural marriage practices in Nauvoo. Neither do you. You don't know what God commanded and what he didn't. Besides my own testimony of the prophetic calling of Joseph Smith, there is Brigham Young who said that Joseph was the most moral man he knew. I believe Brother Brigham and the Holy Ghost. And I believe there are a lot of people who are going to come a cropper because they vilify Joseph Smith.

On the contrary, Charity, my discernment and inspiration is at least the equal of yours. And I wouldn't trust Brigham as far as I could throw him. Brigham wouldn't know a moral man if he hit him over the head with a 2x4. He's the one who led the faithful thousands of miles from home and then sprung the Abomination on them.

Poor harmony. It's like Brigham Young really had a choice, didn't he? What were the options open to the Saints. Stay in the United States which would not offer them any legal protection and abandon their religion so they would no longer bring about any anger from the other citizens. Or get out of the United States. Then you think that your religion is second to the local citizenry?

2 Nephi 15:20 Wo unto them that call evil good, and good evil, that put darkness for light, and light for darkness, that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Wo unto the wise in their own eyes and prudent in their own sight!

That verse aptly describes Joseph, yes. Let us not forget that I'm the one who doesn't rely on the arm of flesh, Charity. I'm the one who follows no man.

I'm the one who follows the Lord. And He has commanded that I follow His prophets as they reveal His word.

We aren't as the city of Enoch yet. But it isn't the "guillible" that are the problem in the Church. It is the lukewarm, the people who want to have the approval of all those people in the "spacious building," and those who mock and ridicule men of God.

I'm not sure who you're trying to finger, but that wouldn't be me. What I want is a church that doesn't prevaricate, that owns it's history, that acknowledges the mistakes of the past and apologizes, that opens lives up to its motto of family first, that puts women on an equal footing with men, that is greatly concerned about the human condition and not at all concerned about the assets it owns. Open the books; ordain women, and own the history, warts and all. To do less than that is to dishonor our ancestors and all they sacrificed.

Now, I see where you are coming from. You can't speak for our ancestors and what they sacrificed. But now I know what you want. And what you want is exactly what all those in the great and spacious building are yellling for. You better check which side you are on.

I don't worship Joseph Smith. I respect him. I think you don't know the difference between worship and respect.

I don't respect him, that's a fact. I think he had a rare gift, and he wasted it on sex and power. And I think he'd completely approve of some of the dealings of the church in the last couple of years, which to my mind is the lowest of the low.

I used to get a little irritated at your posts, as a supposed faithful member of the Church. Now, you just make me sad.

[_charity]

Pretty close to very common. This is from the Palmyra Herald newspaper of july 24, 1822. These excerpts are off the FAIR wiki (http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith_and_money_digging)
"In the young Joseph Smith's time and place, "money digging" was a popular, and sometimes respected activity. When Joseph was 16, the Palmyra Herald printed such remarks as: ...[/quote]
The "money digging" never was a working, real activity. It was fraud, and who committed it, knew this.
Seek hidden treasures with magic rod or with seer stone may have been popular or respected or believed but didn't ever work.[/quote]

Nice that you eliminated most of the article. You are severely afflicted with presentism. Oh, by the way, the Roche Corportation still uses dousing as a method for locating water sources for their facilities.

[_BishopRic]

Please note the following about what the papyri collection consisted of: (This is from a FARMS symposium on the Book of Abraham.

"Gee noted that although in 1967 New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art returned to the LDS Church 10 papyrus fragments from what were once three separate manuscripts, Gee summarized theories about the relationship between the Book of Abraham and the papyri, the date of the Book of AbrahJoseph Smith originally possessed at least five papyri, two of which were long rolls almost certainly destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871. The extant fragments probably amount to no more than 13 percent of what Joseph Smith once had, said Gee, who concluded that the Book of Abraham was translated from a part of the papyri that is now missing.

Long story short...Gee's wrong. Typical mopologetics -- wants to find an explanation and is blinded by the evidence.

End of story.

[_Trevor]

Nice that you eliminated most of the article. You are severely afflicted with presentism. Oh, by the way, the Roche Corportation still uses dousing as a method for locating water sources for their facilities.

And it still works no better than not using it.

[_charity]

Nice that you eliminated most of the article. You are severely afflicted with presentism. Oh, by the way, the Roche Corportation still uses dousing as a method for locating water sources for their facilities.

And it still works no better than not using it.

Your source for saying that is? I think corporations are pretty hard headed. They don't continue to spend money on what doesn't work. It's all in the bottom line. Remember?

[_harmony]

Please note the following about what the papyri collection consisted of: (This is from a FARMS symposium on the Book of Abraham.

"Gee noted that although in 1967 New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art returned to the LDS Church 10 papyrus fragments from what were once three separate manuscripts, Gee summarized theories about the relationship between the Book of Abraham and the papyri, the date of the Book of AbrahJoseph Smith originally possessed at least five papyri, two of which were long rolls almost certainly destroyed in the Chicago fire of 1871. The extant fragments probably amount to no more than 13 percent of what Joseph Smith once had, said Gee, who concluded that the Book of Abraham was translated from a part of the papyri that is now missing.

Let's see, what do I know about Gee? He's the guy who let everyone, including his friend Daniel, believe a lie about his PhD committee, isn't he? Like I'm going to believe him?

Get someone who doesn't have an agenda to say the same thing, and I'll consider it, charity. Geez, girl! At least find a reputable source!

Poor harmony.

Poor charity, more like.

It's like Brigham Young really had a choice, didn't he? What were the options open to the Saints. Stay in the United States which would not offer them any legal protection and abandon their religion so they would no longer bring about any anger from the other citizens. Or get out of the United States. Then you think that your religion is second to the local citizenry?

Brigham kept up the secrecy for almost 20 freakin' years, charity, and THEN he didn't even have the balls to spring it on the members himself. He had someone else do it.

I'm the one who follows the Lord.

I've yet to see any manifestations of it here.

And He has commanded that I follow His prophets as they reveal His word.

Your prime responsibility is not to follow the prophets, charity. Your prime responsibility is to follow Christ. You might want to check your hole card.

Now, I see where you are coming from. You can't speak for our ancestors and what they sacrificed.

Our ancestors? I can speak for what my family's ancestors sacrificed. Can you?