The Mormon Apologist's Modus Operandi

[_Calculus Crusader]

Gordon A. Madsen, "Joseph Smith's 1826 Trial: The Legal Setting" (1990), BYU Studies 30:2:91.

http://byustudies.BYU.edu/Features/Jose ... icles.aspx

Rethinking the 1826 Judicial Decision by Dan Vogel

Incidentally, conman is acceptable.

LOL. Airball.

Perhaps your sic was meant to register your dissent from my characterization of your "prophet." It's just that your penchant for pedantry lead me to believe you were trying to suggest conman is not legitimate.

[_maklelan]

Rethinking the 1826 Judicial Decision by Dan Vogel

Vogel's article concludes that Smith was allowed to go free before the Court of Special Sessions was held. Neely's charge was not for a trial, but for an examination that would determine if a trial was merited. Maybe you should read what you're posting.

[_Calculus Crusader]

Rethinking the 1826 Judicial Decision by Dan Vogel

Vogel's article concludes that Smith was allowed to go free before the Court of Special Sessions was held. Neely's charge was not for a trial, but for an examination that would determine if a trial was merited. Maybe you should read what you're posting.

I read it. Neely found Smith guilty. The fact that leniency was shown to Smith afterward does not change that.

[_maklelan]

I read it. Neely found Smith guilty. The fact that leniency was shown to Smith afterward does not change that.

But Neely's preliminary judgment isn't a conviction. Are you unaware of that, or are you just being dishonest when you say Joseph Smith was convicted:

do you dispute that your "prophet" hired himself out as a treasure-seeker and was convicted as such?

[_Daniel Peterson]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/L ... king_trial

[_Calculus Crusader]

But Neely's preliminary judgment isn't a conviction. Are you unaware of that, or are you just being dishonest when you say Joseph Smith was convicted?

I may have used the term conviction in error, but that is a minor point. Smith was found guilty of money-digging by Neely, and money-digging was not honest work.

[_Calculus Crusader]

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Legal_trials/1826_glasslooking_trial

The quality of your links is deteriorating, professor.

[_Daniel Peterson]

I may have used the term conviction in error, but that is a minor point.

Just as your insinuation that Joseph Smith commissioned himself a lieutenant general, when proven false, was a "minor point."

Just as your claim that Joseph Smith gave up manual labor when he founded his church, having been proven false, turned out to be a "minor point."

You've been backtracking all day.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith/Legal_trials/1826_glasslooking_trial

The quality of your links is deteriorating, professor.

Not so. This last one provides a number of further links.

Think of it as a cluster bomb.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

After observing Mormon apologists for 'x' amount of pages I realized that another tactic they employ is this:

"If you cannot conclusively prove something about Mormonism to be a Falsehood, then it is a given it is Truth."

I see their objective as arguing something to death in order to prevent it from being completely proven as False; which in turn, in their minds, proves it to be True.

Very Respectfully,

Doctor CamNC4Me

[_Daniel Peterson]

Hello,After observing Mormon apologists for 'x' amount of pages I realized that another tactic they employ is this:

"If you cannot conclusively prove something about Mormonism to be a Falsehood, then it is a given it is Truth."

Can poor DCNC4M(8) supply a clear, specific example of this presumably common apologist tactic?

I see their objective as arguing something to death in order to prevent it from being completely proven as False; which in turn, in their minds, proves it to be True.

Which, I suspect, is poor DCNC4M(8)'s way of complaining that "Mormon apologists" don't simply concede the truth of his every accusation.

Poor fellow.