David Miller wrote: > For the record, I have never slandered Joe Smith.
Blainer wrote: > But you just did, above--there WAS that dress as > evidence for Clinton's sinful behavior, but NO > EVIDENCE for JS! To draw a parallel between > the two makes no sense. You are just trying to link > the two together on an emotive level. No, not on an emotive level. I think there is a logical parallel between them. With regrad to the dress thing, the main thing I had in mind in relation to Joseph Smith is our past discussion about the Book of Abraham, and how the discovery of the papyri that he translated from turned out not to say what Joseph Smith claimed it said. That evidence is every bit as damning as Monica's dress. Sure, people can still wiggle around and redefine terms. Hey, Bill Clinton today denies that he had sex with Monica Lewinsky. What did he say? She had sex with him but he did not have sex with her? What else did he say? It depends on what the meaning of the word is is? Blainer wrote: > You essentially pass on conjecture and misnomers > you get from anti-Mormon sites and anti-Mormon writings. You are very wrong. My primary readings have been Mormon sources. I have only recently began looking at anti-Mormon literature, and then only lightly. I don't like reading things where men have some emotional axe to grind. A lot of anti-Mormon literature I find very uninteresting because there is so much spin, but some anti-Mormon literature is very good, raising interesting questions that should be answered. Blainer wrote: > Alex Campbell's essay on the BoM was a prime > example. As I recall, we discussed his writings > extensively. You had to reach for straws to defend > him. You have got to be kidding. I presented his essay primarily because he was a contemporary of Joseph Smith. It was Campbell's disciples who formed the first congregation for Joseph Smith. I have no interest in defending Campbell. He does a fine job without me. I have no background in any of the denominations that descend from Campbell, just as I have no background in the Mormon denominations that descended from Joseph Smith. You say I was reaching for straws to defend Campbell? I have no idea what you mean. You noted a mistake he made and I agreed with you, and explained how it came about. Just because I excused his mistake as being irrelevant to many of his other points does not mean I was grasping at straws to defend him. You are more than welcome to take Campbell to task like I do Joseph Smith. That is why I present the information to you. From my perpsective, you did a lame job of it by focusing on a generational mistake he made, and ignoring the more important point of how God would not violate his Holy Scriptures and raise up a priesthood from a group not of the tribe of Levi at that time when it supposedly took place. Blainer wrote: > Joseph Smith was a man among men. He was a better > man than anyone I know or have known--a true gentleman. I know that you like to think of him this way, and from some of your language and subjects in the past, I suspect you are somewhat like him in your religion. The problem for me is that it is not what I consider holy. A man who drinks, cusses, enjoys a smoke, and regularly wrestles and brawls with people, well, that is not my idea of a man of God. Especially when you add the con man kind of activity, from the looking for buried treasure, to the shady banks which lost people their money, to his polygamy, well, it just does not sound like a holy man. The way he died, trying to save his life, and taking the lives of others, rather than giving his life as a sacrifice and testimony to the Lord, that is just not my role model of a man of God. Blainer wrote: > I wish he lived nowadays, I would seek his friendship. > You never mention some little known facts about him. > For instance, there were few if any men who could > whip him in a fair fight. It took a mob to get the best > of him. A mob of lesser men. I did not realize that you were attracted to this. I would have mentioned it as something undesireable, but I didn't want to sound like I was nit-picking. Yes, I understand that he bragged about his ability to take on anyone, and that he regularly looked for men who would wrestle with him. Blainer wrote: > The "military unit" that killed him and his brother were > a gang of blood-thirsty murderers. The men who attacked > and murdered the Mormons at Haun's Mill were of like ilk. > They murdered children and women, as well as men. They > dumped their bodies down a well, then used the well > walls to sit on and defacate into the well. Real gentelmen, > noble types all, huh? Despicable, but so were some of the Mormon attacks too. I do not relish history of this sort in that it shows the baser aspect of humanity. I have not raised this issue because there was guilt on both sides, to be sure. Blainer wrote: > Do you support hate-crimes? I object to the term "hate-crime" because it is a modern term meant to be used to silence the preaching of the gospel. Murder is a hate crime, but our laws should restrict murder, not hate. We deal with hate through preaching the truth, and through ministering Christ. Hate can only be eliminated through an inside transformation not through political means. 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.
