Blainer wrote: > Websters Dictionary defines whoremonger as follows: > Whoremonger: 1) a whoremaster 2) a lecher > Whoremaster: One who keeps or procure whores for > others; a pimp; a procurer
Hey, this is kind of interesting. I found your definition for whoremonger in an unabridged Webster's dictionary, but for WhoreMaster, it had a second definition which indicated someone who practices lewdness and fornicates with whores. I checked Webster's 1828 dictionary, and found that the definition of Whoremaster had only the second definition, as one who practices lewdness. My World English Dictionary has for whoremonger: offensive term: an offensive term used to refer to a sexually indiscriminate man, especially one who frequents prostitutes (archaic insult offensive) The Greek seems to indicate this definition as well. I said this was interesting because I often preach on college campuses about whores and whoremongers. I've always worked from definitions from other dictionaries, and never noticed that some might be misled by some of the modern Webster dictionaries on what a whoremonger is. I appreciate you pointing that out. Blainer wrote: > Please keep in mind that what makes sense to your > biases, does not always make sense to me. That's why you are suppose to try and work at telling me what does not make sense, and more importantly, WHY it does not make sense to you. David Miller wrote: >> If I'm not sure about something, I will tell you that >> I'm not sure. If I make a conclusion, then there are >> reasons, evidence, backing up my conclusions. Blainer wrote: > A LOT of your conclusions are actually your biases > speaking. (:>) What you assert is often just that-- > an assertion. You need to discriminate between what > is "proof" and what is merely supporting evidence for > what you are asserting. What I'm trying to say is that when I make an assertion, I am prepared to back it up with evidence that supports that assertion. Of course, an assertion by itself is only an assertion. However, if you doubt it, you only need to ask about it to gain access to more information and more evidence. Blainer wrote: > Your assertion that JS married a 3 yr. old is a typical > example. After examining your evidence, I could not > see that it was conclusive. I think you mean a 5 year old. If you are going to challenge me about making unsupported assertions, at least keep the facts straight. Blainer wrote: > Again, it may have seemed to you to be sufficient to > draw the conclusions you drew, but I saw other possible > explanations, which I expressed. I still see no conclusive > proof , even though I have searched the church's records > as much as time allowed. I doubt anyone could have found > anything I did not find, yet no proof was ever forthcoming. When I first brought this situation up, I questioned what this was all about. How could a 5 year old marry Joseph Smith? DaveH explained that it was a sealing or celestial marriage. I still don't fully understand how all this makes it right. The whole idea of many women marrying many men eternally and many men marrying many women eternally creates such a confusing genealogy of eternal relationships that I just get a big headache thinking about it and trying to unravel it all through the genealogical record. I have never been able to sort it out. Blainer wrote: > If you have CONCLUSIVE proof, please present it. I introduced the subject and have been waiting for you to report on your investigation of the matter. I think you know the web site where you can search on this matter. The name of the girl was Sarah Stiles. She was born in 1839, and although her marriage date to Joseph Smith was not given, she must not have been more than 5 years old by the time Joseph Smith died in 1844. A few years after Joseph Smith's death, she married Heber Chase Kimball, apparently while still a child. The marriage date to Kimball is given as 1846. She couldn't have been more than 7 years old when she married Kimball. If you remember, I asked you to explain that. By the way, Kimball married a lot of Joseph Smith's widows. I guess they are going to do a lot of wife sharing eternally in heaven? You guys have never explained this eternal marriage stuff very well. If they can wife share in heaven, then I guess they can do it here on earth too? I'm truly looking for explanation here, not trying to make it look bad. I'm giving you facts and the way my mind interprets this stuff, and I want to hear from you how all this seems good and holy in your eyes. Now you say that I was making unsupported assertions here, but from my perspective, I have asked you questions about these matters. I don't understand why this child was marrying these important men in the church. When I ask questions like this and don't get satisfactory answers, that does not reflect very well upon Mormonism. Blainer wrote: > The same with your assertion that JS joined a Protestant Church. > It seems there was actually more evidence that the minister of that > church placed his name on the records, then took them off to > discredit him. What evidence do you have that the minister took his name off to discredit him? Why would he wait six months, after Joseph Smith showed a serious lapse of getting involved, to remove his name from the church membership, if his motive was to discredit him? Blainer wrote: > He MAY have requested his name on there, perhaps > to please the Hale family, whom he was trying to impress. > But the proof is just not there, although your biases are > clearly there. First, let me say that your insistence upon PROOF for a discussion of historical matters is being a bit defensive. If I present testimony from someone that something happened, is that PROOF? No, because people can lie. However, it is evidence, and when we have similar evidence from several sources, then the evidence tips the scales such that one might make reasonable conclusions about Joseph Smith. Now the problem with Joseph Smith and Protestant church membership / involvment includes a lot of information that I'm not going to take time to present in one post. In a nutshell, the problem is that Joe Smith supposedly had a vision in 1820 that told him all the churches were an abomination, yet his family stayed active members in the Presbyterian church until 1828, when the church records show that they began to "neglect worship and the sacrament of the Lord's supper." Joseph Smith himself relates getting a spark of Methodism in him, and from the dates known when the Methodist acquired the property that he talks about, it was after 1821. Then, Fayette Lapham relates how Joseph Smith's father told him and his friend that Joseph was baptized in the Baptist Church and became a member there, in 1824. The original source for this was published in "Historical Magazine," Vol. 8, 2nd series, No. 5 (May, 1870), pp 305-306. Another writer, Mitchell Bronk, in another publication, relates how Joseph Smith occaisionally attended the Manchester Baptist Church, especially at the revivals, and sat with the crowd - the sinners - up in the gallery. So we have two solid sources showing him involved with the Baptist church. Then, in 1828, after he had supposedly received the gold plates, he joined the Harmony Methodist Episcopal Church. This took place in the same year and month when his wife Emma gave birth to a deformed and stillborn son. I already shared some excerpts from published letters about this, and about how an elder in the Reorganized Mormon Church, while disputing with what it all meant, admitted that Joseph Smith did join the church. He disputed whether it was for 3 days or 6 months. Now you say that proof is not there but my biases are? What you don't seem to understand is that I have spent hours upon hours researching this and examining a lot of information. I give you a short summary of it, and you act defensively and want to say that while it might have happened, there is no proof that it happened. It seems to me that you argue from bias while I am arguing from evidence, historical records, that help us reconstruct what happened in the past. If you want more references and more evidence, I can produce it for you. All you have to do is ask, or engage the discussion. But if you just deny it or ignore it, then there is little sense in me taking time to present more information. It seems to me that despite what evidence or knowledge is presented, your personal experience with a firey sensation in your gut carries more weight than all the knowledge presented from historical documents. It is very difficult to carry on a meaningful and enlightening discussion when you have priorities like this. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
