Would you buy a used car from this man?

[_rcrocket]

It is nearly spotless, and in particular in that topic. I have yet to see any published rebuttal to my two published pieces pointing out any flaws other than minor typos.

Pretty easy for you to malign someone's reputation, anonymously? No?

Certainly not here, where we all watched you getting taken to task on some of your faulty arguments. Go ahead and focus on the "published" part of it, if that makes you feel better. Doesn't make you right.

And by the way, I am not maligning you, jack ass.

Now, it's name calling is it? That gives the imprimatur of authority for you, does it now? Don't worry, I've been called far worse by far stronger posters here than you. The worst insult I'll ever give you is to call you out as a fish in a barrel.

Pick the most faulty argument in my piece and put it out like a turd on a plate here.

[_bcspace]

CFR

He wasn't referring to you, bc.

I know. The implication was for Joseph Smith.

I mean, who would believe that you could get some even by paying for it?

I think you're just jealous.

CFR please.

[_Kishkumen]

The only criticism Scratch ever had was to decisions in ellipsing, which Bagley never said was offensive or misleading. Scratch's analysis was purely disingenuous.

Scratch was hardly the only person criticizing your work, and hardly the most important one.

Pretty easy for you to malign someone's reputation, anonymously? No? But, I'm being repetitive.

Whose reputation? Joseph Smith's? Yours?

Why don't you go over to a board discussing Judaism and throw some turds on their faith? It would give you the same satisfaction wouldn't it? You and John are in very very good company. If there is a God in heaven, surely he would condemn this particular behavior. Anonymous attacks upon faith weak people hold so dear. At least when God told Joseph Smith all the other professors of religion had become corrupt (quoting Isaiah), He used his own name.

Why don't you? It seems to be your fantasy, your preoccupation. John and I are in good company, and all the melodrama and false analogies you raise in high dudgeon will not change the fact that we are basically decent fellows who have every right to criticize the religion of our youth. Your implications of anti-Semitism are both false and blatantly prejudicial. If there is a God in heaven, then surely he would condemn you for making light of the suffering of the Jews in this way.

[_Kishkumen]

It exists. In anti-Mormon newspapers. The very sort of authority Van Wagoner and to some extent Compton found compelling. I know. I ran some of the sources to ground and was just plain shocked at the scholarship.

Because surely good scholarship only relies on friendly sources? Wrong, crock.

[_Kishkumen]

Now, it's name calling is it? That gives the imprimatur of authority for you, does it now? Don't worry, I've been called far worse by far stronger posters here than you. The worst insult I'll ever give you is to call you out as a fish in a barrel.

Pick the most faulty argument in my piece and put it out like a turd on a plate here.

My, my! Aren't you sensitive? I am sure you have been called far worse, but not by me. I'll do you one better; you have done far worse on this thread by comparing Runtu with an anti-Semite. So, don't pretend like the worst you'll ever do is call someone a fish in a barrel. You've already proven yourself far nastier than that.

Don't be too hard on your arguments, Bob. I may have called them faulty, but there is no need to rush to call them turds. I would never be that nasty.

[_bcspace]

Because surely good scholarship only relies on friendly sources? Wrong, crock.

What scholarship has Joseph Smith getting caught having sex with the hired help?

[_Kishkumen]

What scholarship has Joseph Smith getting caught having sex with the hired help?

Learn to read.

[_truth dancer]

Hi Runtu,

I'm always amazed at the lengths people will go to in justifying the behavior of their religious leaders. I once heard a former follower of Jim Jones interviewed on the radio, and she said that people only want to focus on the mass suicides. They forget all the good things Jones did for his people (presumably before he killed them).

This is a phenomenon that fascinates me.

It seems to me followers give a free pass to their leaders regardless of how horrific is their behavior, but condemn the behavior in anyone else.

I've seen LDS apologists and devotees take two different approaches when faced with some of Joseph Smith's not so great behavior:

One, deny. They claim there was no bad behavior and we just don't understand, or God commands certain behavior and Joseph Smith was just incredibly obedient, or the antis just make all this stuff up.

Two, the "so what" excuse. So what that Joseph Smith was not such a great guy. Who cares? God can use anyone he wants and for some reason picked Joseph Smith. People are not perfect and Joseph Smith may have made mistakes but it doesn't matter so long as the one and only true church was restored.

As I have said many times, if any other guy engaged in similar behavior as Joseph Smith, followers would have the guy in jail, or worse. Most men would not tolerate a man trying to coerce their daughters and wives into having an affair in the name of God. But with Joseph Smith, they give him a free pass.

It is funny how humans manage no?

~td~

[_Runtu]

I can tell you this much. I'd never trust anybody personally or professionally whose sole existence is apparently to throw turds on somebody's synagogue. Every day.

John -- you are so full of crap in your interpretation of church history -- so willing to adopt a Van Wagoner view of the evidence with no critical thought. So unwilling to see how weak your view is on certain fronts.

Heh, my "sole existence is ... to throw turds on somebody's synagogue. Every day." That's awesome, Bob. Apparently, my on-again-off-again posting here has struck a nerve.

Show me where I'm full of crap, Bob.

[_Runtu]

Because surely good scholarship only relies on friendly sources? Wrong, crock.

What scholarship has Joseph Smith getting caught having sex with the hired help?

I had in mind this letter from William McLellin to Joseph Smith III in 1872:

"I told [Emma] I heard one night she missed Joseph and Fanny Alger. She went to the barn and saw him and Fanny in the barn together alone. She looked through a crack and saw the transaction!! She told me this story was verily true."

McLellin repeated the story in an 1875 interview in the Salt Lake Tribune.

Also, this from Benjamin Johnson:

There was Some trouble with Olivery Cowdery, and Whisper Said it was Relating to a girl then living in his [the Prophet's] Family And I was afterwards told by Warren Parrish, That he himself & Oliver Cowdery did know that Joseph had Fanny Alger as a wife for They were Spied upon & found togather.