BKP says Joseph Smith never convicted of a crime. True?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Jury's still out for me on that one. LOAP, you've been around since I started on these boards--even from the time I was attacked by your friends over at MAAD for being a doubting High Priest (told that I would spend an "eternity in hell"). You watched without comment most of the time -- occasionally piled on and maybe even once tried to stop your friends from embarrassing themselves with their hate after I asked you how you could simply stand by and watch.

To the contrary, I remember defending you from attack often, even when disagreeing with some of your points. I also remember pointing out how often you focused on the attacks rather than the good responses you received. I am not surprised, then, to see your memory reflecting my initial observations.

Of course, now we know that "the devil laugh[ed]" (as Elder Hales said this past weekend) when they were doing it and laughed even harder when all you saints (including DCP, and all the others) stood on the sidelines as the appointed folks (Pahoran and Selek, et al.) attempted to push the latest doubter out of the Church.

mms, I find your remarks on my behavior to be flawed. I am far from perfect, btu to color me as "standing on the sidelines" and sending out some internet Danites to destroy you while I looked on is flatly false. Please don't misrepresent me again.

But I digress. Just as then, I continue to see examples of the highest authorities making mistatements of fact that mislead the masses. There is such a pattern of this, that it is hard to believe it is unintentional. And if it is intentional, I have trouble believing one is acting as an Apostle of Jesus Christ when doing so. I am particularly sensitive to the whitewashing because I believe this practice was part of why my whole world was turned upside down when I began to learn the actual history.

Well, as we can see between you and I, different people react very differently. They also carry very different perceptions.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

How do you sustain him? What do you mean?

That means that, on the rare occasion when he's acting as an apostle, I accept him as such. And yes, I get to be the one who decides if he's acting as an apostle or a man. It's called personal revelation and I use it all the time.

And if a leader of the church doesn't know the history of the church, then he will have to answer for that lack.

Thanks for your answer.

[_mms]

Jury's still out for me on that one. LOAP, you've been around since I started on these boards--even from the time I was attacked by your friends over at MAAD for being a doubting High Priest (told that I would spend an "eternity in hell"). You watched without comment most of the time -- occasionally piled on and maybe even once tried to stop your friends from embarrassing themselves with their hate after I asked you how you could simply stand by and watch.

To the contrary, I remember defending you from attack often, even when disagreeing with some of your points. I also remember pointing out how often you focused on the attacks rather than the good responses you received. I am not surprised, then, to see your memory reflecting my initial observations.

Of course, now we know that "the devil laugh[ed]" (as Elder Hales said this past weekend) when they were doing it and laughed even harder when all you saints (including DCP, and all the others) stood on the sidelines as the appointed folks (Pahoran and Selek, et al.) attempted to push the latest doubter out of the Church.

mms, I find your remarks on my behavior to be flawed. I am far from perfect, btu to color me as "standing on the sidelines" and sending out some internet Danites to destroy you while I looked on is flatly false. Please don't misrepresent me again.

I don't believe you sent anyone out to "destroy" me and did not mean to imply that. I did not mean you "assigned" them. They assigned themselves and all of you fans simply encouraged them by your silence (and sometimes your words). You simply cannot dispute this. The record is clear. You and your friends almost always stood by and watched while Pahoran and Selek attacked their latest victim--I think you may have even offered home-baked cookies to Selek (or did he to you?) as he was resting in between viscious attacks on one of the threads. I remember thinking, "these guys actually see this as sport."

It was an eye-opening experience for me. If you feel badly about it, then, well, that's okay, make up for it by actually opening your mouth when they go after the next one, but don't try to revise history and act as if you have shown in any substantive way that you give a ratt's ass about how they have treated people over there. Seriously, that is laughable. Maybe you have changed as of late, as I am not around there (banned).

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I don't believe you sent anyone out to "destroy" me and did not mean to imply that. I did not mean you "assigned" them. They assigned themselves and all of you fans simply encouraged them by your silence (and sometimes your words). You simply cannot dispute this. The record is clear. You and your friends almost always stood by and watched while Pahoran and Selek attacked their latest victim--I think you may have even offered home-baked cookies to Selek (or did he to you?) as he was resting in between viscious attacks on one of the threads. I remember thinking, "these guys actually see this as sport."

It was an eye-opening experience for me. If you feel badly about it, then, well, that's okay, make up for it by actually opening your mouth when they go after the next one, but don't try to revise history and act as if you have shown in any substantive way that you give a ratt's ass about how they have treated people over there. Seriously, that is laughable. Maybe you have changed as of late, as I am not around there (banned).

For a guy who is so concerned about accurate history I have to admit I find your recounting quite inaccurate. I've offered no one cookies, I've chastised board members many times for abrasiveness, I've even been suspended from the board for so doing. I certainly feel badly for some board members giving you a hard time. I also remember others who were coming to your defense, including me, or others who were trying to answer your questions without being rude. You consistently focused on the poor behavior above all else. Thus, again, the way you have restructured history is not surprising to me, but it differs drastically from my own reconstruction.


ad
ad

[_Dr. Shades]

"The prophet Joseph Smith demonstrated this courage throughout his life. Though he suffered severe persecution at the hands of all classes of men--both religious and irreligious--he did not retaliate or give in to hatred.

It's an ambiguous statement, and the purpose of it seems to be to encourage non-retaliation.

I disagree. The phrase "he did not retaliate" it not ambiguous in any way, shape, or form.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I disagree. The phrase "he did not retaliate" it not ambiguous in any way, shape, or form.

But he did demonstrate forgiveness and courage "throughout his life." That is the ambiguity. Did Hales mean unequivocally in every instance throughout his life, or did he mean generally throughout his life? If the former, I would disagree with Elder Hales. If the latter, I see what he means. Can anyone here think of an instance where Joseph Smith could have or might have wanted to retaliate, but refrained?

You may embed only 2 quotes within each other.

Worst. Rule. Ever.

[_Scottie]

But he did demonstrate forgiveness and courage "throughout his life." That is the ambiguity. Did Hales mean unequivocally in every instance throughout his life, or did he mean generally throughout his life? If the former, I would disagree with Elder Hales. If the latter, I see what he means. Can anyone here think of an instance where Joseph Smith could have or might have wanted to retaliate, but refrained?

If I recall correctly, he often threatened to retaliate if the women he made polygamous advances towards ever told what he had done by destroying their reputations.

Didn't he actually destroy someones reputation for telling on him?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

But he did demonstrate forgiveness and courage "throughout his life." That is the ambiguity. Did Hales mean unequivocally in every instance throughout his life, or did he mean generally throughout his life? If the former, I would disagree with Elder Hales. If the latter, I see what he means. Can anyone here think of an instance where Joseph Smith could have or might have wanted to retaliate, but refrained?

If I recall correctly, he often threatened to retaliate if the women he made polygamous advances towards ever told what he had done by destroying their reputations.

Didn't he actually destroy someones reputation for telling on him?

Did Hales mean unequivocally in every instance throughout his life, or did he mean generally throughout his life? If the former, I would disagree with Elder Hales. If the latter, I see what he means. Can anyone here think of an instance where Joseph Smith could have or might have wanted to retaliate, but refrained?

[_Dr. Shades]

I disagree. The phrase "he did not retaliate" it not ambiguous in any way, shape, or form.

But he did demonstrate forgiveness and courage "throughout his life."

Sure, right after he retaliated.

(In other words, intermittently demonstrating forgiveness and courage "throughout his life" doesn't mean he never retaliated.)

That is the ambiguity. Did Hales mean unequivocally in every instance throughout his life, or did he mean generally throughout his life?

The phrase "Though he suffered severe persecution at the hands of all classes of men--both religious and irreligious--he did not retaliate or give in to hatred" implies unequivocally in every instance throughout his life. Otherwise he would've said "he only rarely retaliated" or "he almost never retaliated."

You may embed only 2 quotes within each other.

Worst. Rule. Ever.

Actually, it's the BEST rule ever. It keeps the board from getting cluttered with extraneous quote-boxes.

[_Scottie]

Did Hales mean unequivocally in every instance throughout his life, or did he mean generally throughout his life? If the former, I would disagree with Elder Hales. If the latter, I see what he means. Can anyone here think of an instance where Joseph Smith could have or might have wanted to retaliate, but refrained?

You asked for some instances. I brought some up for discussion.