Glenn Thigpen and references
TheJordan6
Randy wrote to Glenn of the Haun's Mill Massacre:
>>I gave you a list of 15 published works so that you can research it on your
own. I don't have time nor the inclination to cite every factoid, when you can
study it on your own time---especially when you didn't ask me for any
references to begin with.
Glenn wrote:
>They are reference materials. An assertation deserves documentation without
which it has no credibility.
And I have listed the reference materials from which you can study the subject
on your own, without having to depend on what you ignorantly assert to be my
"fiction."
>>>>Your assertion that my post was "fiction" is an ad hominem that questions
my education and/or integrity. It's obvious from reading your posts over the
years that you know very little about Mormon history; therefore, your assertion
that my post was "fiction" is based upon nothing more than your own ignorance.
>>>The only thing obvious is that I disagree with your take on Mormon history.
>>Then I suggest that you study the works I referred you to, and get back with
me when you've finished.
>Why, when you are unable to back up your assertations but rather engage in
personal attacks on the intelligence and education of anyone who disagree with
you or calls you on your negligence.
I have written numerous posts about the Haun's Mill massacre and the events
that caused it. I repeated them in my series of posts on the MMM. You have
been here on ARM for some time, and you can read my documentation just as
everyone else here can. A couple of months ago, you wrote that you 'haven't
been reading many of my posts lately.' That demonstrates that you very well
could have missed posts from me on these issues. Therefore, your claim that I
am "unable to back up my assertions," when I have done so many times, is
intellectually dishonest on your part---or either your memory and mental skills
are so poor that you cannot remember what I've written. As far as your
"intelligence and education," I think you pretty well demonstrated that by your
ignorance of the conditions in Utah that caused President Buchanan to send the
Army.
>>You're asking me to hold you by the hand, like a little child, and do your
homework for you.
>No. Just back up what you say. Citing fifteen works, any fourteen which may
not
be applicable to any given message is not documentation.
All fifteen works I cited deal specifically and directly with the subject at
hand. If they didn't, I wouldn't have cited them. You should read them for
yourself, in full, so that you won't think I've 'taken things out of context.'
>>Sorry! If you're interested in this subject, do your own homework. If you
want some basic advice on how to research the works I referred you to for
specific information, I suggest you learn the purpose of an "index" or figure
out how to do a "word search." Or get a grownup to help you.
>It is your homework that I am questioning. How well you have done it and how
well you understand what you say you know. That is how references work.
Then DO YOUR OWN, so you won't have to depend on my "understanding."
>>>That is what references are for. If you want to write in a conversational
style which is defamatory to other people and other beliefs you can logically
expect to be called on it.
>> It wasn't "defamatory." It was FACTS. Cite from my post what you feel to
be
"defamatory," and I'll cite you the documentation that supports my
information.
>The burden is upon you to prove your assertations by documentation, by
references. Without such, anything you may have to say about your distorted
version of history is incredible.
I've already done so many times. IF I do desire in the future, and WHEN I get
time, I may do so again. But I sure ain't gonna do it for the likes of you.
My posts on the MMM should convince any intelligent person that I am well
versed in Mormon history. When you respond by writing that my post is "100%
fiction," you're only showing your own ignorance.
>>>And I actually do think.
>>Yes, you think "How can I discredit this source so that I can keep faith in
Mormonism?"
>I do not expect you to ever have faith in the Church of jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints.
And there are two reasons for that: One, I have studied the issues thoroughly,
and two, I am not a delusional fanatic.
>>Funny, you're the only person on ARM who's opining that my post was
"fiction," and demanding references. Could it be that you're the only person
on ARM who is "without a clue?"
>They have to stop laughing first.
Speaking of ad hominems.......Who is "laughing" at my posts? Do you think
anyone's "laughing" at my 15-part post on the MMM? Strange, I haven't seen any
signs of laughter from Mormons on that subject; in fact, all I've seen in
response is dead silence, except for Wacky Worm's declaration that he thinks
that discussing the MMM is "incredibly boring." And you suddenly decided that
you were working too hard, and needed some rest, so you couldn't respond to it
either.
>>>>>For instance there was one some time back concerning supposed children of
Joseph
Smith by women other than Emma Smith.
>>>>Yes, I've written numerous posts on that subject.
>>>>>You said, without references, that Mary Elizabeth Lightner had confirmed
that Joseph indeed had fathered children by other women.
>>>>With that, you have made a liar out of yourself, because I have provided
both the text and the reference to Lightner's remarks many times. If you wish
to challenge that, I'll dig the posts out of my file cabinet where I documented
it for "Brickwall" Guy Briggs. If you don't want me to do that, here's the
text once again:
>>>My name is not "Brickwall" Guy Briggs.
>>True, but you share certain traits.
>Although you (probably) did not mean it as such, I take that as a compliment.
You're right. I did not mean it as a compliment. The traits you share with
Guy are hardheadedness, lack of objectivity, and irrational fanaticism.
>>>This is an exchange between you and me.
>>Guy is the guy who went on and on about this a couple of years ago.
>I understand that. But Guy was NOT a participant in the thread of which I am
speaking.
That doesn't matter. ARM is an open forum, and everybody can read and respond
to everyone else's threads. *I* remember the thread where you and I discussed
this issue; I saved my post on it in my files for future reference, and I have
recently re-posted it in full, for YOUR convenience, so that YOU could see that
I ALREADY provided the reference on the Lightner quotes almost TWO YEARS AGO.
>>>>Joseph came up the next Sabbath. He said, "Have you had a witness yet?"
"No."
"Well," said he, "the angel expressly told me you should have." Said I, "I have
not had a witness, but I have seen something I have never seen before. I saw an
angel and I was frightened almost to death. I did not speak." He studied a
while and put his elbows on his knees and his face in his hands. He looked up
and said, "How could you have been such a coward?" Said I, "I was weak." "Did
you think to say, `Father, help me?'" "No." "Well, if you had just said that,
your mouth would have been opened for that was an angel of the living God. He
came to you with more knowledge, intelligence, and light than I have ever
dared to reveal." I said, "If that was an angel of light, why did he not speak
to me?" "You covered your face and for this reason the angel was insulted."
Said I, "Will it ever come again?" He thought a moment and then said, "No, not
the same one, but if you are faithful you shall see greater things than that."
And then he gave me three signs of what would take place in my own family,
although my husband was far away from me at the time. Every work came true. I
went forward and was sealed to him. Brigham Young performed the sealing, and
Heber C. Kimball the blessing. I know he had six wives and I have known some of
them from childhood up. I knew he had three children. They told me. I think two
are living today but they are not known as his children as they go by other
names.
>>>>End quote.
>>>>Here, once again, is where you can read Lightner's complete address on the
web:
>>>>http://www.math.byu.edu/~smithw/Lds/LDS/Early-Saints/MLightner.html
>>>I have done that long ago. In fact that was the one that I was
expecting/hoping that you would reference in our exchange.
>>ARMekites, did you catch that? Above, Glenn wrote that I cited Lightner's
remarks "without references," as though I made it up; but here, he admits that
he himself read it "long ago," and hoped that I would "reference it in our
exchange." Pray tell, Glenn, how on earth can you assert that my citing of
Lightner's remarks was "without references," and then admit that you HAVE READ
IT YOURSELF "long ago?"
>>If you read it long ago, then WHY ON EARTH DO YOU NEED ME TO CITE THE
REFERENCE FOR IT?????????
>Because you did not cite ANY reference in that thread. I did not know where
you
were getting the information from which you drew your conclusions.
Glenn, there is a thing which we grown-ups call "common knowledge." That
means if that if both of us know something, and we both stipulate that it's a
fact, then there is no point in further disputing the issue. When you use this
Lightner quote business to attempt to show ARMekites that I "don't provide
references," when in fact, I provided both the quote and its reference nearly
two years ago (and repeated it for your benefit a few days ago), then it is
just really, really, really *****STUPID***** of you to use the Lightner issue
to "make your case" that I don't provide references!!!!!!!!!
You are CONTRADICTING YOUR OWN ARGUMENT. An argument that was silly to begin
with, and becomes sillier the longer you keep it up.
>I did read up on Mary Lightner, and we do seem to be using the same
references, but there is a difference between the facts and your conclusions.
Did you catch that, ARMekites? At first, Glenn claimed that I "didn't provide
the reference"; but now that he admits that we are quoting the same reference,
he switches his argument to "conclusions" that are drawn from the reference.
That's called "moving the goalposts." Here again is Mary Lightner's comment:
"I know that he had six wives and I have known some of them from childhood up.
I knew he had three children. They told me. I think two are living today but
they are not known as his children as they go by other names."
Tell us, Glenn, what incorrect "conclusions" have I drawn from this statement
of Lightner's?
>>>>(At this point, if we go by your past history, you will declare Mary
Lightner to be an "anti-Mormon", and declare BYU's website to be an
"anti-Mormon" source, because that's what you do with any source that disagrees
with your predetermined conclusions. That's what makes you a brainwashed
fanatic.)
>>>Which goes to show how wrong you are.
>>>Your primary purpose in these exchanges is to attempt to put sources in
black-or-white categories of "pro-Mormon" or "anti-Mormon." If you dispute
that, I suggest you re-read your remarks from a couple of years back concerning
Fawn Brodie, Michael Quinn, etc.
>While I do not remember ever labelling Fawn Brodie or Michael Quinn
anti-Mormon,
I'll be happy to re-post your criticisms of them.
>I do have problems with the way they use and present some of their sources.
The only reason you "have problems" with their work is because of your
ignorance of Mormon history and your brainwashed mental state. If you had even
the slightest clue about the facts of Mormon history, you wouldn't have
problems with their writings.
>That would take up another thread entirely, but some of those problems have
been
debated here on a.r.m. before.
And they will continue to be, as long as people like you are around.
>>>Mary Lightner lived many years as a faithful LDS.
>>I know her history far better than you.
>What relevance has that opinion to do with my statement?
It's not an opinion, it's an obvious fact. Its relevance is that I recognize
that she was a "faithful LDS," as well as a "plural wife" of JS, and I am well
versed in her life as well as those surrounding her, and their interrelated
context, and that is why I consider her comments on JS' extra-marital sirings
to be credible. Not to mention the fact that her comments jibe with numerous
others from her fellow Mormons.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
Glenn wrote:
>>>And I do not think that the BYU website is anti-mormon.
>>And yet, you claimed that my citing of her remarks was "without references,"
as though it were fiction, when in fact, her journal is on BYU's website.
>When I was able to find it, it still is no better than fiction. And you
should know it.
Did you catch that, ARMekites? Glenn has switched his argument from "you don't
cite references", to declaring his opinion that the cited reference I cited
is "no better than fiction!" Tell us, Glenn, if Lightner's remarks are
"fiction," then why does LDS-church-sponsored BYU's website publish it? Are
you implying that the LDS church's own university maintains "fictional"
material on its website, pretending it to be fact? If so, why do you support a
religion that publishes "fictional" material as though it were fact?
Lightner's remarks have been quoted countless times by respected LDS scholars
and historians. By what "authority" do you declare them to be "fiction?"
Lightner's account of how she "saved" the manuscript pages of the "Book of
Commandments" from "the mob" in Missouri has been re-told and published in
official LDS media. Is that account "fiction" as well?
>>>>>The sum total of your information that you offered to support this was
that Mary had lived at Nauvoo during that period and would have been in a
position to know of such things.
>>>> I don't recall writing that at all. Perhaps you have me confused with
some other poster who is not as knowledgeable as myself. However, seeing as
how Lightner was one of Joseph Smith's "plural wives," and was in the "inner
circle" of his private life in Nauvoo, that's reason enough to trust her
credibility. If you want to know more about Lightner than you do at present
(which is practically nil), then you can study the 22 pages Todd Compton spends
on her life in his "In Sacred Loneliness."
>>>Randy, you do not know anything about my state of knowledge, about Mary
Lightner,
or anything else.
>>To the contrary, I think you give us daily displays of the state of your
knowledge.
>There you go thinking again.
Just to refresh your memory: "What government officials? Brigham Young was
the legally appointed governor of the Utah Territory as well as the
Superintendant of Indian affairs. Please give some reference who those
government officials were that Brigham Young refused to accept the authority
of."
>>>You may not recall that exchange, because I pointed out in it that Mary
Lightner and her husband did not live in Nauvoo for any great length of time, I
think less than six months. This came from her diaries. If you like, I will
provide you with the particular reference.
>>Uh.....no need to, Glenn. It's the same reference I already gave, from BYU's
website.
>>>Her diaries actually show that during this period, she was not part of that
"inner circle" and seemed to have had little social contact with the other LDS
sisters.
>>Mary and her husband Adam moved to Nauvoo in November of 1840.
>>>According to her autobiography they moved to Farmington, Illinois in
November of 1838 where they stayed until January of 1842 when they moved in
with her step-father on his invite because of their bad circumstances.
Farmington was only 50 miles east of Nauvoo, "but their bank failed and they
lost their savings, so they returned to the Burks' home near Nauvoo.....Smith
proposed to her in early February 1842 at the home of Newel and Elizabeth
Whitney." (Compton, p. 211.)
Because you are not conversant in Mormon history, you are unaware that the
first half of 1842 was the apex of Smith's "secret wife" practice. He
"married" 13 of his 33 "plural wives" between October 1841 and July of 1842,
including Lightner in February 1842. Therefore, Mary lived in Nauvoo, was
"sealed" to Smith during the height of his polygamy practice, and was intimate
friends with the "inner circle" of women who were also intimate with Smith.
>Mary does not actually give the year in her autobiography, but she goes on to
note in the same paragraph that she was delivered of her third child, George
Algernon on March 23rd
and we know that George Algernon was born in 1842.
And "George was born to Mary in Nauvoo.....On April 14 Mary was accepted into
the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo, and on June 9 she contributed $1.00 to
it." (Compton, p. 213.) Her membership in the fledgling Relief Society, which
also included many of Smith's other "secret wives," again demonstrates her
position to be "in the know."
>>She was "plural married" to Smith in February of 1842, 15 months later.
>That was the next month.
So you recognize that Mary had a legal, faithful husband, Adam, while she was
"plural married" to Joseph Smith. I hope that in the future, you will correct
your fellow Mormons (like Woody Brison) who continually assert that Smith "did
not marry the wives of other men."
>>That was more than enough time for Smith to teach her about the "principle"
and get her to "marry" him. She and Adam later moved to Pontoosuc, 15 miles
from Nauvoo.
>That would have been in July of 1842, approximately six months or maybe a
little more.
Right. She was "married" to Smith in February; she donated $1.00 to the Nauvoo
Relief Society on June 9. That shows that she was an active Mormon and on an
intimate basis with other Mormon women in Nauvoo for five or six months.
Plenty of time to become educated on the particulars of "the principle." Of
course, that doesn't even address her 60 additional years of intimate
friendships among the Mormon elite women in Utah.
>>After Smith's death, "On January 30, 1845, at Parley P. Pratt's home, she
received her endowment, thus joining the elite group of the Holy Order. As a
widow of Joseph Smith, she would have enjoyed some prestige, and this led to
her next marital union. In the fall of 1844 Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball
offered themselves to Smith's widows as proxy husbands and Mary accepted
Young's proposal." (Compton, p. 214.)
>>(Mary's "sealing" to Young contradicts the traditional apologetic view that
Young and Co. "took in" Smith's "widows" to "care for them," because Mary
already had a healthy, working, legal husband, Adam.)
>Whom she lived with until he died.
You've ignored my point, which is that Mary's induction into the "Holy Order",
and subsequent proxy marriage to Brigham Young, further demonstrates her
"insider" position on polygamy in Nauvoo. And after she moved to Utah, she was
intimate friends with many of Smith's "plural widows" for decades, as shown by
the volume of correspondence between her and Eliza R. Snow, Zina Huntingdon
Jacobs, Sylvia Sessions, etc:
"Eliza [R. Snow's] letter shows Mary's friendships with elite plural wives in
Salt Lake, wives of Brigham and Heber and Joseph:
'I feel that you are truly my very dear sister, and whenever I think of you, I
feel to thank the Lord that you are in the land of Zion---that you are gathered
out.....Sister [Marinda] Hyde was very much pleased with the keepsake (night
cap) which you left with Sister Emily [Partridge Young] for her. She said she
prized it more for you having worn it. She wished me to thank you for her, and
send her love. Sisters [Elizabeth] Whitney, [Vilate] Kimball, Lucy D [Decker
Young], Susan S. [Snively Young], Zina H. [Huntingdon Young] Emily P [Partridge
Young] &c. &c. send their love and blessings....." (as quoted in Compton, p.
220.)
Therefore, your juvenile attempt to isolate Mary from the herd and discredit
her testimony as an insider on polygamy is refuted by the facts of history.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
Randy wrote:
>>Mary was one of only a few dozen people who were "in the know" about Smith's
Nauvoo polygamy, both as a "plural wife" and a member of the highly exclusive
"Holy Order" (or "Anointed Quorum.") After she moved to Utah, she was the RS
president in Minersville for many years; she participated in female "blessing
meetings" with other elite women, consisting mainly of Smith and Young's
"plural wives," wherein they prayed and "spoke in tongues"; as one of Smith's
"plural widows," she met with others every December 23rd for years, to note
Smith's birthday. The point being---Mary was close confidantes with many of
Smith's other "plural wives" for decades, including Eliza R. Snow, Zina Jacobs,
Eliza and Emily Partridge, Prescindia Buell (Zina's sister,) Sylvia Sessions
(mother of Smith's
child Josephine), and others. Therefore, Mary was in a position to know women
who claimed to have born children by Smith. At the time she gave her remarks,
Utah Mormons like her were giving testimony and swearing affidavits to their
first-hand knowledge that Smith had originated and practiced polygamy, as
opposed to Young, because the "Reorganite" president, Joseph Smith lll, was
attempting to deny that his father began polygamy. Thus, Mary's testimony that
Smith had fathered at least three children by "plural wives" was given to
support the Utah church. But here in 2001, you, a Utah Mormon, because of
modern political correctness, seek to dispute what Smith's intimate followers
and "plural wives" testified to.
>But nothing in her remarks in her diaries or her speech even hint at any such
revelations.
Are you insane, or merely stupid? "I KNOW that he had three children. THEY
TOLD ME."
>Just how does she say that she knows that Joseph did sire children by other
women than Emma?
"I KNOW that he had three children. THEY TOLD ME." Did you get it that time,
Glenn? In case you weren't aware, I'll let you in on a little secret---women
talk to each other about very intimate aspects of their lives, including
husbands, children, and sex.
>>>As to her credibility, do you accept her assertation that she saw an angel?
>>Of course not. She was a deluded fanatic. Fanatics "see" what they want to
see. People who believe in UFO's will sit outside and peer at the night sky
until they "see" one, and people who want to "see" an angel will eventually
"see" one, too. Just ask Martin Harris.
>In other words, when you think it fits your agenda, you accept it. When it
does not, you reject it.
<chuckle> You mean, exactly as you are doing with Lightner? Even people who
claim to have seen UFOs can have credibility when discussing whom their
girlfriends are having sex with. The problem with your attempt to discredit
Lightners' testimony about Smith having sex with his "plural wives" is that
other people, both men and women, confirmed it---even those who didn't claim to
see "angels."
And I most certainly DO NOT "reject witnesses when they don't fit my agenda."
Rather, as any honest investigator would do, when I find seemingly
contradictory statements on the same subject from two different witnesses, I
weigh the two against several factors: common sense, what other witnesses said,
how many are consistent, and what motive any of them had to prevaricate. For
example, the "testimony" of the three BOM witnesses can be weighed against the
historical, archaelogical, and anthropological anachronisms with the BOM
itself. Seeing as how the BOM is a demonstrable fraud based on scientific
facts, the "testimonies" of the three witnesses are impeached. It doesn't
matter if there were 3 witnesses, 103 witnesses, or 1,003 witnesses---the BOM
is still a fraud.
And in similar fashion, Susa's remark, based solely on what Brigham told her,
is refuted by the numerous other witnesses who testified that Smith had sex and
sired children with some of his "plural wives."
>>But this has nothing to do with her personal knowledge that Smith fathered
children by his "plural wives."
>But it has a lot to say about how you use your sources.
Nonsense. Lightner made her remarks IN SUPPORT of Mormonism and Joseph Smith's
polygamy practice. "In the nineteenth century, all leading Mormon women were
expected to further the cause of polygamy, which was considered identical with
the cause of the church." (Compton, p. 262.)
YOU are treating her as though her remarks were IN OPPOSITION to Mormonism,
purely because you don't like the idea of Smith having sex and children with
other women. If YOU believe that Mary had angelic visitations and 'witnesses'
to confirm the 'truth of polygamy,' then it is more incumbent upon YOU to
believe her testimony of the polygamous system, whereas *I* have no obligation
to believe EITHER STORY. If Lightner had been the ONLY person who testified
that Smith's polygamy practice included sexual relations---and others came
forward to dispute Lightner's remarks---then you might have a ghost of a case
in discrediting her. But unfortunately for your little crusade, NUMEROUS
Mormons confirmed that Smith had sex with other women, and one of his "plural
wives" Sylvia Sessions signed a legal affidavit that her daughter Josephine was
the biological child of Smith. Therefore, your attempt to discredit Lightner
based on Brigham's lone remark to Susa is futile.
>>>Your reference does not do for you what you say it does. It does not show
that Mary Lightner knew that Joseph Smith had children by other women.
>>Glenny can't read! It says EXACTLY that! "I knew that he had three
children. They told me." And Lightner wasn't the only one who testified to
that, Glenn.
>You should know that remark does not show how Mary KNEW they were Joseph's
children.
"THEY TOLD ME." How many times need I repeat it, Glenn?
>She only knew that there were three people who told her they were Joseph's
children. She did not name those three.
And this matters because.....? Mary wasn't giving trial testimony under oath,
Glenn. She was telling an audience of BYU graduates her first-hand experiences
as a revered "plural widow" of Joseph Smith, and as an intimate friend of many
of his other "plural wives." She was invited to speak purely because of her
revered position. If you had been in that audience that day, would you have
jumped from your seat and demanded that the aged Lightner recite the names of
the children, and demand that she be yanked from the podium if she didn't give
detailed information as to names, dates, etc.? Is that what you do in
sacrament meetings? Demand "references" and "sources" for every speaker's
personal testimony? If so, you must be a real "joy" to be around down at thuh
ward house.
>One of your own sources tells us that Joseph died without issue in the church.
Glenn, that wasn't "my own source," that was Susa Young Gates' recollections,
maintained by the Utah State Historical Society. And it was given as an
OPINION, but is refuted by other, more knowledgeable witnesses.
>How did those children know that they were sired by Joseph Smith? Someone must
have told them, because I doubt very much that they remembered being sired nor
the
siree.
You're a GENIUS, Glenn! Somebody told them: THEIR MOTHERS. Sylvia Sessions
informing her daughter Josephine that Smith was her biological father, for
example.
>Randy, how do you know who your parents are? Because you grew up in their home
and they told you that you were/are their son? Because you have a birth
certificate naming them as your parents? Neither one is proof positive that you
are indeed the biological offspring of the ones you know as your parents. Now,
before you go south, let me aver that I am not even hinting that such is the
case,
just that you cannot know anything just because someone says it is so.
It was Smith's own "plural widows" who testified of having sex with him, and
Mary made her remarks in support of Mormonism. If you wish to believe that
Smith didn't have sex with his "plural wives," then maybe you should consider
becoming RLDS.
>If you will recall your church doctrine, you will remember that when a woman
is
sealed to a man, if that man dies and the woman remarries, any children that
she
may have by the second husband is accounted as the first husband's children.
Whether you believe that to be true is irrelevant.
I'm quite familiar with the concept. Smith's original practice was to "plural
marry" women who already had legal, living husbands---even if they were having
children with those legal husbands---Mary Lightner being an excellent example,
as she was pregnant with her husband Adam's child at the time she was "sealed"
to Smith. What you, as a hero-worshipper of Smith cannot get through your
head, is that he invented that concept so that he could have sex with married
women, without having to care for them or any children of his that they might
bear. Since several of his "plural wives", even those married to other men,
testified that they had sex both with Smith and their legal husbands, any
children they bore during those periods could have been sired either by Smith
or the legal husband. As Mary Lightner hinted, "I could tell you why I stayed
with Mr. Lightner. Things the leaders of the church does not know anything
about. I did just as Joseph told me to do, as he knew what troubles I would
have to contend with." Todd Compton comments: "So Smith instructed her to
stay with her husband. One obvious advantage to such a modus operandi was that
it would preserve the secrecy of their polyandrous union." (p. 213.) The
"troubles" Lightner feared was what happens when a single woman turns up
pregnant, and that is why Smith told her to stay with her "for time" husband.
And Lightner's veiled statement hints that her child George may have been sired
by Smith.
As I told your Brickwalled friend several times, the ONLY way we can determine
who Smith fathered is to do DNA testing on his suspected progeny, as was done
in the Thomas Jefferson case. Prescindia Huntington Buell----the sister of
Dimick Huntington and Zina Huntington Jacobs, and the wife of Norman
Buell----admitted that she didn't know whether her son was sired by Norman or
Smith. One case that further illustrates Smith's shameful practice was his
order to Joseph Kingsbury to enter into a "sham marriage" with Smith's "plural
wife" Sarah Ann Whitney, so that if Sarah became pregnant by Smith, she would
have a "paper" husband, and wouldn't be viewed as a tramp---and she would have
an "on-paper" father for any progeny. The Lightner situation was likely the
same.
>It is what those who married Joseph's plural wives and the wives themselves
believed that are relevant, and that is what is alluded to by Susa Young Gates.
You seem to ignore the fact that Lightner was also one of "the wives
themselves," and you are ignorant of the fact that other women besides Lightner
testified of sexual relations with Smith.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
Glenn wrote:
>>>>>I offered a reference to a piece by one of Brigham Young's daughters
having been taught by her father that members of the quorum of the twelve had
taken the wives that had been sealed to Joseph and fathered children by them,
which would be accounted as Joseph's by the Lord, because he (Joseph) died
without issue in the church.
>>>> Funny, I've posted the same reference, from Susa Young Gates.
>>>Yes you did. It was that reference to which I was referring.
<chuckle> Then why do you say YOU "offered the reference," when it was *I* who
posted it, as you acknowledge? Strange, this entire harangue from you began as
a criticism of me for supposedly "not providing references," but it seems that
*I* am providing ALL of the references for the BOTH of us.
>>>>>This you dismissed lightly
>>>>Talk about "fiction!" I did no such thing. You either have a poor memory,
or you're an unabashed liar. Guy Briggs engaged in a months-long rant, trying
to challenge the issue of Smith's siring of extra-marital children, and I
quoted Susa Young Gates' remarks to show Guy that reproduction was a regular,
normal part of Smith's "plural marriage" system. Guy doesn't wish to believe
that Smith had sex with anyone other than Emma. Compton quotes Gates' remarks
on page 661 of "In Sacred Loneliness."
>>>I haven't the greatest memory in the world, but it is not exactly poor, nor
am I an unabashed liar.
>>You're obviously one or the other.
>You are consistent, but nonetheless harmless.
Whereas you are both inconsistent AND harmful to the cause of truth.
>>>And you did use this reference to try to show that Joseph Smith did have sex
with his plural wives, although it says much more about a lack of sexual
activity on Joseph's part with any of his plural wives.
> >To the contrary, it demonstrates that reproduction was an accepted,
expected, aspect of Smith's "plural marriage" practice. The reason I quoted it
was because Guy repeatedly asserted (from ignorance) that reproduction wasn't
the purpose for polygamy.
>That reproduction is an accepted part of polygamy is not an issue with me.
Then it certainly is strange that you are trying to discredit Lightner's
testimony about Smith's reproduction. The SOLE REASON that you are trying to
discredit evidence of Smith fathering children is so that you can pretend that
he didn't have sex with his "plural wives." The reason you do that is because
if you concede that Smith had sex with his plural wives, (even if he failed to
impregnate them), then you concede that he was an adulterer and a hypocrite.
>But this passage does not imply in any manner that Joseph had sexual relations
with
any of his plural wives.
<sigh> Brigham Young told his daughter Susa that the reason he and others
"married" Smith's "widows" was so that Smith wouldn't be "left without issue in
the church." That implies that Smith WOULD HAVE impregnated his "wives" IF he
had not been "stricken down in the prime of life." And the fact that Young,
Kimball, etc., impregnated Smith's "wives" on Smith's behalf "by proxy"
demonstrates Brigham's and Susa's acknowledgment that Smith would have sired
children by them if he hadn't been killed. But neither Brigham nor Susa knew
about every woman that Smith "plural married" or had sex with.
In Susa's statement, she listed some of the women that Brigham had "taken in",
including Emily Partridge, Eliza R. Snow, Louisa Beaman, and Zina D.
Huntington. In the "Temple Lot Case", Emily testified that her relationship
with Smith had been sexual: "Q---Did you ever have carnal intercourse with
Joseph Smith? A---Yes sir." (Compton, p. 732.) In his letter to George
Gibbs, lifelong faithful Mormon Benjamin Johnson confirmed that:
"Meanwhile, the Prophet, with Louisa Beeman and my sister Delcena, had it
agreeable arranged with Sister Almera, and after a little instruction she stood
by the Prophet's side and was sealed to him as a wife, by Brother Clayton;
after which the Prophet asked me to take my sister to occupy number "10" in his
Mansion home during her stay in the city. But as I could not long be absent
from my home and business, we soon returned to Ramus, where on the 15th of May,
some three weeks later, the Prophet again came and at my house occupied the
same room and bed with my sister, that the month previous he had occupied with
the daughter of the late Bishop Partridge, as his wife."
Therefore, since Smith had sex with at least one of the women on Susa's list,
it's obvious that he attempted to "have issue" from his "plural wives," whether
he successfully did so or not; therefore, your attempt to use Susa's comment to
"prove" that Smith didn't have sex or children is refuted. (Incidentally,
Brigham's justification to Susa that he "took in" Smith's "plural widows" so he
could "raise up seed to Joseph by proxy" is invalid in part, because several of
the women Brigham "married by proxy" had living, legal husbands who could
impregnate them, including Zina Jacobs and Mary Lightner. Therefore, it's
obvious that Brigham "took in" those already-married women so that he could
have sex with them.)
What you are doing, although unwittingly, is exactly what RLDS apologists have
done in their attempts to claim that Young, rather than Smith, instituted
polygamy, namely: "If Smith was having sex with all those women, then where
are his children?" Compton relates Joseph Smith's lll's 1885 interview with
Melissa Lott Willes, wherein he was trying to discover whether his father had
practiced polygamy:
"Were you married to my father?" asked Joseph.
"Yes," answered Melissa flatly.....
"Were you a wife in very deed?" he asked. If he could prove that there was no
sexuality in the alleged marriages, he might explain the unions as mere
ceremonies for eternity, not authentic marriages.
But Melissa replied, "Yes."
So Joseph resorted to his trump card: "Why was there no increase, say in your
case?" No children proved no sexuality, in his mind.
Melissa answered, "Through no fault of us, lack of proper conditions on my part
probably, or it might be in the wisdom of the Almighty that we should have
none. The Prophet was martyred nine months after our marriage." (p. 594.)
Helen Smith (wife of Patriarch John Smith) recalled that "Melissa Lott told me
that when a girl she sewed for Emma Smith and took care of the children.
Joseph had to pass through her room to go to Emma's room. She said Joseph
never had sexual intercourse with her but once and that was in the daytime,
saying he desired her to have a child by him. She was barefooted and ironing
when Joseph came in, and the ceremony was performed in the presence of her
parents." (Compton, p. 765.)
Thus, although Smith had sex with Melissa "but once," (according to Helen), and
her "conditions" prevented successful impregnation, Smith's goal was
impregnation nonetheless.
I find it ironic that over a century ago, several of Smith's "plural widows"
testified of their relationships with him, to support the Utah church's
polygamy practice; but here in 2001, YOU are using the same line of reasoning
that RLDS apologists did, to try to DISCREDIT those women! What a conundrum
you face: As an SLC Mormon, you are forced to support its polygamy doctrine;
but you are ashamed of the cold, hard, facts of Smith's practice, which
included having sex with numerous women, so you use RLDS tactics to try to
convince yourself that Smith didn't practice what he preached!
Compton offers comments on the sexual aspect of Smith's practice:
"In the group of Smith's well-documented wives, eleven (33%) were 14 to 20
years old when they married him. Nine wives (27%) were 21 to 30 years old.
Eight wives (24%) were in Smith's own peer group, ages 31 to 40. In the group
aged 41 to 50, there is a sunstantial drop off: two wives, or 6%, and three
(9%) in the group aged 51 to 60.
"The teenage representation is the largest, though the twenty-year and
thirty-year groups are comparable, which contradicts the Mormon folk-wisdom
that sees the beginnings of polygamy as an attempt to care fo older, unattached
women. These data suggest that sexual attraction was an important part of the
motivation for Smith's polygamy. In fact, the command to multiply and
replenish the earth wa part of the polygamy theology, so non-sexual marriage
was generally not in the polygamous program, as Smith taught it." (p. 11-12.)
As Compton alludes, the stereotypical Mormon "justification" for polygamy is
that "so many Mormon men were killed by 'mobs,' so other men 'took in' their
widows and children to care for them.' But the fact that eleven of the "wives"
that Smith "married" were unmarried teenagers-----and another eleven were
currently married to other living Mormon men-----clearly shows that
"justification" to be fraudulent. Not to mention the fact that only a handful
of Mormon men had been "killed by mobs," and Smith didn't "take in" any of
their widows. Those facts make it obvious that Smith invented his "secret wife
system" so that he could have sex with numerous women to whom he was not
legally married, rather than to "care for widows"; and since his own
"theology" stated that the purpose for the system was to "multiply and
replenish the earth," it's pointless to argue that Smith didn't have sex with
them.
Compton further offers:
"According to Joseph Bates Noble, Smith
told him he had spent a night with Louisa Beaman.
When Angus Cannon, a Salt Lake City stake president, visited Joseph Smith lll
in 1905, the RLDS president asked rhetorically if these women were his father's
wives, then "how was it that there was no issue from them." Cannon replied:
"All I knew was that which Lucy Walker herself contends. They were so nervous
and lived in such constant fear that they could not conceive. He made light of
my reply. 'I am informed that Eliza Snow was a virgin at the time of her
death.' I in turn said, "Brother Heber C. Kimball, I am informed, asked her
the question if she was not a virgin although married to Joseph Smith and
afterwards to Brigham Young, when she replied in a private gathering, 'I
thought you knew Joseph Smith better than that.' "
Cannon then mentioned that Sylvia Sessions Lyon, a plural wife of Smith, had
had a child by him, Josephine Lyon Fisher. Josephine left an affidavit stating
that her mother, Sylvia, when on her deathbed, told her that she (Josephine)
was the daughter of Joseph Smith. In addition, posterity (i. e., sexuality)
was an important theological element in Smith's Abrahamic-promise justification
for polygamy. (See D&C 132:30-32).
Since there is a great deal of evidence that Joseph Smith had sexual relations
with his wives, one wonders why he did not have more polygamous children.
However, some of his children apparently grew up under other names, as Mary
Lightner suggested. Furthermore, he may not have had numerous posterity
because he was not able to visit his wives regularly, both because he was often
hiding from the law and because Emma, his first wife, watched him carefully.
In addition, polygamy was illegal....Finally, some of his wives were married to
other men in polyandrous relationships, so such wives would probably have had
children by their "first husbands", with whom they were cohabitating regularly,
not by Joseph. All of these factors would have combined to limit the number of
his children. However, it is clear that some of his plural wives did have
children by him if we can rely on the statements of Geroge A. Smith, Josephine
Fisher, and Elizabeth Lightner.....
In conclusion, though it is possible that Joseph had some marriages in which
there were no sexual relations, there is no explicit or convincing evidence for
this (except, perhaps, in the cases of the older wives, judging from later
Mormon polygamy). And in a significant number of marriages, there is evidence
of sexual relations." ( pp. 12-15).
And also:
"A recent study has concluded that there are only six days in a woman's
menstrual month when she can become pregnant. Since these days are difficult
to pinpoint precisely, a couple that desires pregnancy should have intercourse
frequently. If a couple has intercourse once a week, there is a 10% chance of
pregnancy in a typical month; with daily intercourse, there is still only a 25%
chance of pregnancy in a typical month. In addition, a third of all
pregnancies result in miscarriages.....Joseph Smith was almost certainly having
daily sexual relations with none of his thirty to forty plural wives. In
addition, miscarriages and the infant mortality rates in malaria-ridden Nauvoo
would have further limited what few children he had by plural wives.
Furthermore, he married the great majority of his wives in 1842 and especially
1843, less than a year before he died. However, as we have seen, Mary
Elizabeth Lightner said she knew of three children of Joseph who were raised
under other names. Of these three, one, Josephine Lyon Fisher, has been
convincingly documented." (p. 638.)
Randy J.
TheJordan6
Glenn wrote:
>I think it was nine times that Emma conceived by him, so he was hardly
sterile, yet again your source says that he died without issue in the church.
Once again, the "died without issue" comment was an opinion of Young's, rather
than fact, and is refuted by numerous other witnesses. Note that although he
did impregnate Emma nine times, several of those children did not survive. As
Compton cites, the infant mortality rate was low during the period, so that
affected the survival rate of Smith's "plural children" just as it did those he
sired by Emma. But OTOH, Smith could have sired NUMEROUS children, whose
mothers simply elected not to reveal Smith as the father, to avoid "troubles,"
as Lightner put it. Even Emma bore her last child of Smith's four months after
his death. Therefore, every child born of any of Smith's known "plural wives"
during his entire polygamy period, and up to nine months after his death, can
be suspected of being sired by him. Only DNA testing of suspected descendants
can confirm or deny it.
>>>Here is your reference on 1999/09/03
>>>"Emily Partridge and the other bereaved young plural widows were approached
by Pres. Young and the Twelve after the Martyrdom with an offer of their
shelter and sustenance, "for time only," of these brave brave girls who had
dared ridicule and even mobs and death to enter into that order...Father and
the Twelve Apostles felt the death of the Prophet far more keenly than did the
people; and as we believe that children are a part of the glory we inherit
hereafter, it seemed a cruel thing that the beloved leader and Prophet should
be stricken down in the prime of his life, AND BE LEFT WITHOUT ISSUE IN THE
CHURCH...Father went to those noble women who had accepted the principle of
celestial marriage with the Prophet as her husband, and he told them that he
and his brethren stood ready to offer themselves as husbands FOR TIME, and the
widows might choose for themselves. Four of these young widows chose father,
and he accepted the charge thus laid upon him. He felt the grand old Hebrew
impulse (an erection? RJ), to be himself the instrument BY WHICH POSTERITY FOR
HIS DEAD BROTHER MIGHT BE BORN IN THIS LIFE. All honor to the great men who
could make and carry out such splendid tributes to the dead leader and friend."
(Susa Young Gates papers, Utah State Historical Society.)
>>>Here is what I mean by you taking something lightly on 1999/09/06 concerning
Susa
Young Gates' statement: "It isn't surprising that Susa believed that JS had no
"issue" before he died; her father probably told her that as part of his
justification for impregnating
JS' "plural widows." Susa's statement does not negate Mary Lightner's."
>>>You accept what you wish from from "friendly sources" and dismiss what does
not
agree with your postulation.
>>Absolute nonsense. Glenn, get a clue. YOU accept Susa's remarks, but you
dispute Mary's, and you lie about what Mary said to try to force your view into
being the "correct" one.
>Surely I accept Susa's remarks.
And *I* accept them for what they WERE: Brigham's justification to his daughter
for having sex with numerous women. But his opinion that Smith "had no issue"
is refuted by other witnesses, who were more intimate with Smith and are
therefore weightier. Surely you realize that during the height of Smith's
instigation of polygamy, Young was on a mission in England; Smith's closest
aide at the time was John C. Bennett, who split with Smith and exposed the
details of polygamy in his 1842 "History of the Saints." Therefore, even
Bennett's statements on Smith's intimate relations during that period are more
reliable than the absent Young's.
>I did not lie about what Mary said.
Here again is your lying statement about Lightner's remarks:
"Your reference does not do for you what you say it does. It does not show that
Mary Lightner knew that Joseph Smith had children by other women."
>I accept that she BELIEVED she knew something, because someone had told her.
I don't have to force what she said into any view.
But your "acceptance" is only your opinion, offered 96 years after Lightner's
statement, and carries no weight whatsoever. Lightner did not say she
"believed" it; she stated that she KNEW the parties personally, and as she was
intimately involved with leading Mormons, including Smith's "plural widows",
for 60 years, you'll pardon me if I prefer her testimony over your worthless
opinion.
>>When Smith was alive, Susa was a youngster, and she knew nothing about his
secret polygamy practice. Therefore, whatever she knew about it came from
Brigham.
>Not hardly. If you remember, Brigham had many wives, and some of them were the
former plural wives of Joseph.
Duh. Really? I assume you know that from Susa's statement which *I*
furnished, therefore I don't need to "remember" that fact; I am quite familiar
with it.
>You don't know just what she may have learned from them.
Take a look at that one, ARMekites!!! Glenn rejects the first-hand testimony of
Smith's own "plural widow," Mary Lightner, on the alleged basis that she wasn't
"in the know"; but then he ASSUMES that Susa, who was a toddler during the
period, "may have learned" the opposite "from them," without offering us an
iota of evidence that Susa's remark was based on anything other than her
father's comment to her. Glenn posits that Mary's intimate friends, her fellow
"plural wives" of Smith, didn't tell her about their sex life with Smith---but
Glenn then opines that maybe those same women told SUSA, who was an entire
generation younger then they!
To repeat: Your juvenile argument that "no children means no sex" is neutered
by the fact that Emily Partridge, Melissa Lott Willes, and others testified in
court that they had sex with Smith, and others testified that they had borne
children by him, including Sylvia Lyon's legal affidavit to that effect.
>Even if Brigham was her only source, why would Brigham lie to her about it?
Because most men's daughters revolt at the idea of their father having sex with
women other than their mothers, and Brigham told her that as a "theological"
justification for having sex with them. And Brigham's justification was
disingenuous, because those women were young and marriageable, and could have
obtained husbands of their own with which to "raise seed unto Joseph," without
the "benefit" of Brigham's sperm donation; and also, at least one of the women
Young "took in", and had sex with, Zina Jacobs, already had a living, legal
husband, who was fertile and had already sired several children with Zina.
Young informed Zina's husband Henry that his wife "belongs to Joseph now, and
you will have to go and find another." Picture that, folks-----You lose your
wife to a dead man, but another living man takes her on the dead man's
"behalf," and has sex and sires children with her! What an ingenious setup
for Mormon leaders! As I've stated many times, Mormon polygamy was merely an
elaborate "pecking order", which enabled the highest-ranking leaders to
copulate with the greatest number of desirable females. In that, Mormon
polygamy had more in common with the sexual propensities of wild animals than
it did to anything "holy."
>After all, sex was an accepted part of polygamy, and having children by
polygamous
wives was also accepted.
And yet, you are trying your damndest to discredit first-hand testimonies of
people who had sex and children with Smith. Your "intelligence" is showing
again.
>Brigham did not have to defend himself concerning sexual relations to his
daughter nor the Twelve, because they all believed alike in the sanctity of the
plural marriage doctrine and in marrying the wives of deceased brethren to
raise up seed to them in the church.
Nevertheless, Brigham's remarks are negated by the first-hand testimonies of
Smith's own "plural wives." Who knows more about your sex life, Glenn? Your
wife, or your daughter?
>>Her view couldn't possibly override Lightners', or Smith's other women, who
were adults and had first-hand experience with him.
>Did Mary Lightner ever acknowledge that she had a sexual relationship with
Joseph?
She made a veiled reference to it, which I've quoted. In Smith's original
practice, if a woman was "sealed" to a man for "time" and "eternity," the
"time" portion referred to an earthly, actual "marriage", which included the
rights to full sexual relations, rather than merely a future "eternal"
relationship. Mary testified on three occasions that she was "sealed for time
and eternity" to Smith. In addition, since Mary was the one who testified as
late as 1905 that Smith's "plural marriages" with other women were sexual,
there's no reason to believe that hers was any different. The idea was to "do
the works of Abraham," producing "posterity without number."
>>Also, you must understand that even Brigham didn't know all of Smith's women
or which of them he was "doing." Even the Partridge sisters didn't know that
each other had been secretly "sealed" to Smith. It was all very hush-hush.
Smith's "plural widows" didn't "come out" and begin telling of their sexual
relationships until they were safely in Utah, far away from critiicsm or
prosecution. The only reason there is little documentation on Smith's siring
of children is because he was killed early in his practice of it. Also, the
Bennett explosion slowed him down somewhat, as did Emma's rejection of
polygamy, and the High
Council's refusal to sustain the "revelation." But the issue of how many
"spiritual children" Smith fathered is secondary to the issue that polygamy
involved sex, and the sexual aspect is well-established. The only reason that
people like you, Guy, Woody, etc., wish to disbelieve that Smith had sex with
his "plural wives" is because it makes him appear less godlike in your eyes.
You want to see Smith preaching the word and blessing the sick, instead of
meeting Fannie in the barn or Sarah down by the riverbank. IOW, you worship
Joseph Smith.
>Randy, I do not worship Joseph Smith or Brigham Young.
To paraphrase Richard Dreyfuss, "Your lips say no no no, but your attitude says
yes yes yes." Your sole purpose in attempting to discredit reports of Smith's
extra-marital relations is to maintain a heroic, superhuman, demigod image of
him in your mind. You want to force Joseph Smith to fit into the year 2001
Mormon "family values" virtues of honesty, fidelity, and high integrity;
unfortunately, the REAL man Joseph Smith cannot fit that mold, so you seek to
re-invent him until he DOES, in your mind. The MAN Joseph Smith is
unacceptable to you; you want to be a Mormon; so you replace the man Joseph
Smith with a more palatable MYTH.
>I do not know if Joseph had sexual relations with any of his plural wives.
Neither do I, but I know what those "plural wives" testified to, and they so
testified as active, faithful Mormons, in support of Utah Mormonism. I also
know that the stated purpose of Smith's polygamy practice was to "produce
tabernacles for spirits."
>My only point in this thread that we are discussing now is that the evidence
that you have produced does not prove that Joseph Smith did have sexual
relations with any of his plural wives or that he sired any children by them.
And your major problem is that you are ignorant on the subject, and unqualified
to make such conclusions, because you operate under the mistaken notion that
the evidence I provided in that particular thread is all the evidence that
exists. You have naively assumed that Lightner was the only Mormon who ever
testified to Smith's sexual relationships; so like a New York lawyer, you have
attempted to discredit her testimony by incorrectly casting her as an
"outsider" to Nauvoo polygamy, and to opine that her testimony was merely what
she "believed," rather that what she knew from her intimate assocations with
those involved. IOW, you eliminate and distort facts until they force-fit with
your predetermined conclusion.
On this thread, you have provided an excellent example of how Mormon apologists
operate: When you are presented with facts or testimony that refutes your
desired position, you "attack the messenger," rather than the message. You
have used the same tactic in the past, when you asked me if I "had been reading
from the gospel of Michael Quinn", and if I had "been getting my information
from 'Mormonism Unvailed,' " and when you asserted that "Judge Noble King was a
liar, and I can prove it." Your tactic is to wholesale discard all witnesses
who challenge your predetermined conclusions, until you are left with only
those who agree with you. Your tactic is called "intellectual dishonesty," and
it forms the very foundation of Mormon apologetics. Even when a witness is an
active, faithful Mormon like Mary Lightner, who was a first-hand eyewitness and
participant to the events of which she testified, you, as an irrational zealot,
must discredit her, because her remarks do not fit your desired image of Joseph
Smith. You are not interested in things like "history", "facts," or "truth";
you are ONLY interested in defending your God, Joseph Smith.
>>>>>but still accepted as gospel the still unproduced statement by Mary
Lightner that Joseph had fathered children.
>>>>Seeing as how I've quoted Lightner's statement several times, and given the
reference for it several times, (and I have just done it again), your assertion
that it is an "unproduced statement" on my part is utterly false.
>>>Not to me. Not in this thread "Joseph Smith supposedly marrying other men's
wives".
>>I've quoted Lightner's remarks, and the reference for it, in several posts.
The possibility that I may not have cited it in a particular post to you does
not negate that.
>>You are bringing this up purely to "make a case" that I don't cite
references, but I HAVE cited the references on this subject several times, so
your "case" isn't worth a fart in a whirlwind.
>If you wish to stink up the place, it is your space.
Your own ignorance is what stinks.
>I have said repeatedly that I was speaking about this one particular thread as
an example.
And the fact that I provided the reference in the thread where we discussed
this in August of 1999, which you conceded, makes your entire allegation about
my supposed lack of providing references invalid. You have "impeached" your
own "star witness," and thereby have given as another excellent display of your
"intelligence."
>I did not say that you NEVER cite references but that you often do not do so.
And I have told you that I provide references WHEN ASKED. In your original
stupid comment on this thread, you claimed that a particular post of mine was
"100% fiction." I did not provide references because I WAS NOT ASKED TO. Your
assertion that my lack of references equated to my post being "100% fiction"
really only demonstrates your own ignorance. I should hope that my 15 posts
full of documentation on the MMM would show you that I can "provide references"
for what I so desire to.
When I first signed onto ARM, the hue and cry from TBMs here was "Call for
references!" and "Cites, please!" Those cries came from such posters as Kerry
Shirts, David Bowie, Craig Anderson, Russell McGregor, Scott Quantz, and others
whose names I have forgotten. Then a funny thing happened: I began providing
references for my information, and over a few months' time, the "calls for
references" from TBMs diminished to its current volume of a trickle. And most
of those Mormons who "called for references" have seemingly disappeared. It's
obvious that TBMs have grown tired of seeing references from me, because my
exhaustive documentation disrupts their long-held cherished views of Mormon
history (which consists largely of misinformation indoctrinated into you by
paid Mormon apologists.) As I provide more scholarly documentation of
information than anyone on ARM (as far as I can see), your assertion that "I
don't provide references" is merely another example of your intellectual
dishonesty.
>>>>Now Glenn, do you wish to accuse anyone else of writing "fiction?" 'Cause
it sounds as though you need to take a look at your OWN honesty before you take
it upon yourself to question anyone else's.
>>> I have done so. Check it out.
>>Done so.
>>>I am not debating that issue here. It is irrelevant to my point, which has
already been made.
>>>Glenn
>>NO, no relevancy AT ALL!!!
>>First, you bring up a charge against me that is totally false; and then, you
declare that it's "irrelevant!"
>>>Randy, your references or lack of them was the point. The subject of Joseph
Smith's wives, sexual relations. etc. IS irrelevant to whether or not you
posted references.
>>It's COMPLETELY relevant, because you attempted to use the Lightner issue to
"prove" that I don't give references, but now you say that the Lightner issue
is "irrelevant!" First, you build a strawman argument; and then, you tear it
down yourself! You're some piece of work, Glenn.
>Did you cite the reference to Mary Lightner in the thread that I referenced?
Yes, I did, and I re-posted the entire post from August of 1999, wherein I gave
the source for Lightner's remarks, around June 1 or so. I've not heard a peep
from you since then, so I assume that you suddenly got "too busy" to admit to
your lies about my writings.
Randy J.
John Manning
Excellent Randy ! ! !
From my 30+ years of experience with such as 'Glenn', he takes comfort
within his 'safe' community. He takes pride in 'having defended the
church' against apostasy.
However, he can never again use his impotent arguments legitimately
here. And I surmise that he is quite content to accept less than the
truth that you have so thoroughly expressed, to perpetuate his 'comfy'
self-delusion. In my view he is a true coward and liar - in the vein of
Joseph Smith Jr. His mentality (AND pseudo spirituality) permeates the
LDS Church.
John Manning