Woody Brison's Threats

John Manning

unread,

Jul 16, 2001, 9:55:01 PM7/16/01

to

The obvious satanic symbols are being dealt with by Woody with threats.
Woody does not like the TRUTH.

Woody just responds with 'permission issues' and totally IGNORES
addressing the satanic symbols.

> Dear Rod,
>
> On your site, at the url
>
> http://helpingmormons.org/salt_lake_satanic_symbols.htm
>
> you have used without permission or attribution an image that belongs
> to me. It is http://helpingmormons.org/images/sunston1_s.jpg and
> the link behind it is to my website, where the original is displayed.
>
> Were you informing the public about anything true or good, I
> would have no objection, but since you are publishing falsehoods,

Falsehoods? LOOK FOR *YOURSELF* ! ! !

> I am going to deny you permission to use my photograph, which I took
> at Nauvoo in the fall of 1998, and has been on my website ever since.
>
> You have cropped the image slightly, but that does not make it
> yours or give you the right to use it as you are doing. I am
> paying for the storage of the larger image at the link to my
> site, it is not right that you use this for your nefarious purposes.

Showing TRUTH is nefarious ? ? ?

>
> FYI, I have written a complete and correct rebuttal of your entire
> page there, and posted it to alt.religion.mormon.fellowship. You
> may view it at
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=f36171a3.0107091940.5f88feb5%40pos
ting.google.com
>
> and in fact I invite you to post any defense you can think of
> for your ignorant and lowbrow behavior, or an apology with
> removal of the image and link.

I will look to this and respond.

>
> Be aware that any response you make to me, I may post to the
> group, or to anywhere else I see fit, as I am doing with this
> present communication.

*Fear* is ever present as a tool for the spiritually blind.
Interestingly, those who *see*, have no fear.

Idiots (Woody Brison) prevail as *we* allow them.

The satanic symbols ARE there on the lds temple. Look for yourself.

John Manning

>
> Woody Brison
>

Adrian Parker

unread,

Jul 16, 2001, 10:01:27 PM7/16/01

to

I didn't read his entire site, but the question I get from reading just a
few lines is this:

Why would break defamation laws and then on the other hand complain about
copyright violation (of which he likely doesn't have intellectual property
anyway)?

Adrian

"John Manning" <joh...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:3B539AF5...@cableone.net...

John Stone

unread,

Jul 16, 2001, 11:06:50 PM7/16/01

to

Oh we hear from Adrian (a guy), the mormon wannabe!

--

"Adrian Parker wrote

John Manning

unread,

Jul 17, 2001, 12:49:02 AM7/17/01

to

Whatever anyone says, the satanic symbols are there for everyone to see.
Do you wonder why???

jrm

Markg91359

unread,

Jul 17, 2001, 2:20:02 AM7/17/01

to

>Whatever anyone says, the satanic symbols are there for everyone to see.
>Do you wonder why???

John you are so full of it.....why do you waste time with this kind of slander
and nonsense.

Mark

GMAN

unread,

Jul 17, 2001, 2:54:32 AM7/17/01

to

1 Corinthians 15:41-42

41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another
glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead......

John Manning

unread,

Jul 17, 2001, 6:34:00 AM7/17/01

to

Slander ??? Nonsense ??? Maybe you do not like TRUTH. All you need to do
is LOOK! Are you blind ???

Do you think those symbols are not really there ??? Do you have *eyes*
???

What will it take for you to be able to see with your own eyes ???

Are you blind ???

Any child can see. Do you now accept black as white ???

TRUTH: The 'satanic' symbols are all over the lds temple.

TRUTH: Markg91359 cannot SEE that they are there. Markg91359 says

"...why do you waste time with this kind of slander and nonsense."

OK. 'Truth' is now slander and nonsense, and eyeballs cannot see the
satanic symbols.

Hey Markg91359, selective seeing is self deception. Your denial of
reality is proof enough of your group thought control.

www.helpingmormons.org/salt_lake_satanic_symbols.htm

jrm

>
> Mark

clif...@netdoor.com

unread,

Jul 17, 2001, 6:35:46 AM7/17/01

to

On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:34:00 -0700, John Manning <joh...@cableone.net>
wrote:

What about the satanic symbol used in the Medal of Honor , John ?

Woody Brison

unread,

Jul 17, 2001, 9:08:04 AM7/17/01

to

It's fun sometimes to see how critics get into funny situations
of their own making.

John Manning <joh...@cableone.net> wrote in message news:<3B539AF5...@cableone.net>...

> The obvious satanic symbols are being dealt with by Woody with threats.

What threats did I issue, John?

> Woody does not like the TRUTH.

And your source for this revelation is...?

> Woody just responds with 'permission issues' and totally IGNORES
> addressing the satanic symbols.

Sonny, I posted an entire analysis of his page there. (See below,
at the point marked with ***.) Why do you not read?

> > Dear Rod,
> >
> > On your site, at the url
> >
> > http://helpingmormons.org/salt_lake_satanic_symbols.htm
> >
> > you have used without permission or attribution an image that belongs
> > to me. It is http://helpingmormons.org/images/sunston1_s.jpg and
> > the link behind it is to my website, where the original is displayed.
> >
> > Were you informing the public about anything true or good, I
> > would have no objection, but since you are publishing falsehoods,
>
> Falsehoods? LOOK FOR *YOURSELF* ! ! !

John, I have. I have been a member of the Church for over
28 years. I have been active all those years, gone to church
every Sunday or nearly so. In all those church meetings,
there has /never/ been a satanic theme introduced into the
religion. It's always been about Jesus Christ, God the Father,
the Holy Ghost, the prophets and Apostles, the scriptures.

> > I am going to deny you permission to use my photograph, which I took
> > at Nauvoo in the fall of 1998, and has been on my website ever since.
> >
> > You have cropped the image slightly, but that does not make it
> > yours or give you the right to use it as you are doing. I am
> > paying for the storage of the larger image at the link to my
> > site, it is not right that you use this for your nefarious purposes.
>
> Showing TRUTH is nefarious ? ? ?

John, find another hobby. Writing one-liners is not your
thing. You've demonstrated this amply.

> > FYI, I have written a complete and correct rebuttal of your entire
> > page there, and posted it to alt.religion.mormon.fellowship. You
> > may view it at
> >
> >
> http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=f36171a3.0107091940.5f88feb5%40pos
> ting.google.com
> >
> > and in fact I invite you to post any defense you can think of
> > for your ignorant and lowbrow behavior, or an apology with
> > removal of the image and link.
>
> I will look to this and respond.

*** John, you have now admitted before this entire audience
that you are aware that I wrote this rebuttal. Yet above,
you wrote, "Woody just responds with 'permission issues' and
totally IGNORES addressing the satanic symbols." You should
have scrolled up and erased that before posting. Why do you
not care enough about your own reputation to even do that?

> > Be aware that any response you make to me, I may post to the
> > group, or to anywhere else I see fit, as I am doing with this
> > present communication.
>
> *Fear* is ever present as a tool for the spiritually blind.
> Interestingly, those who *see*, have no fear.

I have often found that things advised via private email do
not have much effect. The advisee just figures that they don't
have to do anything. When it's done in public, they realize
the whole wide world is watchin'. As the news people say,
"sunshine is the best disinfectant".

And, this has had some effect. Rod has removed the link to
my page, which attempted to use my larger stored image to his
ugly purpose. Too bad, for my next move was going to be to
modify that image, put instead a notice sending the reader to
a page rebutting his page.

Before you take this as an occasion to remonstrate me about
"THE TRUTH", please, realize I am the one bringing this all
into the light. That guy Rod is publishing lies and I'm
exposing them to the light.

> Idiots (Woody Brison) prevail as *we* allow them.

Thank you for making my day. See Matt. 5:11-12.

> The satanic symbols ARE there on the lds temple. Look for yourself.

No. The ancient symbols of truth and righteousness are on the
Temple, see Gen. 1:14-18, "and God saw that it was good." The
worshippers of Satan have adopted some of them in twisted form,
as Rod even admits.

Wood

Woody Brison

unread,

Jul 17, 2001, 9:25:11 AM7/17/01

to

"Adrian Parker" <adrian...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<T%M47.9936$oh4.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...

> I didn't read his entire site, but the question I get from reading just a
> few lines is this:
>
> Why would break defamation laws and then on the other hand complain about
> copyright violation (of which he likely doesn't have intellectual property
> anyway)?

Parsing your sentence, I gather that you are trying to say,
"why would Woody break defamation laws..."

I'm not aware of breaking any defamation laws, if you would
kindly clarify I would be interested.

I did not complain about copyright violation. The internet is
a big, wild experience and copyright laws are a little archaic.
To copyright something, you actually have to register it with
the U.S. Government, by mailing in a copy and claiming it.
(This does nothing to copyright it internationally, and the
internet is international.) What I did was simply to point out
to Rod that I was the photographer who took the photograph, I
put it on my website, and that he had copied it without
permission and used it for an evil purpose. My appeal was not
to copyright law but to rightness, justice.

And, he acknowledged the rightness and justice by doing part of
what I asked him to do -- he removed the link. I think it
likely that he didn't even realize he HAD the link. Now if we
can just get him to realize his whole thesis is incorrect, we
will have made some real progress.

When it comes to intellectual property, I did not create the
design on the sunstone.

Wood

Paul Wake

unread,

Jul 17, 2001, 11:42:08 PM7/17/01

to

In article <f36171a3.0107...@posting.google.com> Woody Brison,

wwbr...@lds.net writes:
>To copyright something, you actually have to register it with
>the U.S. Government, by mailing in a copy and claiming it.

No ya don't. If you create something, like say a story, it's
automatically copyright protected. Doing the paperwork and sending it in
just makes it easier to get a rapid legal decision if there is an
infringement later, and allows for additional fees then.

>When it comes to intellectual property, I did not create the
>design on the sunstone.

But if you rendered it in some new, creative manner, that creation could
be protected.

Stand up for your rights! Especially against annoying people.

--
http://www.xmission.com/~wake/

John Manning

unread,

Jul 18, 2001, 9:29:02 PM7/18/01

to

Woody Brison wrote:
>
> It's fun sometimes to see how critics get into funny situations
> of their own making.

It must be a laugh a Min.

>
> John Manning <joh...@cableone.net> wrote in message news:<3B539AF5...@cableone.net>...
> > The obvious satanic symbols are being dealt with by Woody with threats.
>
> What threats did I issue, John?

I wonder if someone used your 'personally photogrephed' satanic symbol
in support of your position, if you would respond as you did to Rod.

>
> > Woody does not like the TRUTH.
>
> And your source for this revelation is...?

The satanic symbols are on the SLC temple. More are to be included on
other temples as is documented.

>
> > Woody just responds with 'permission issues' and totally IGNORES
> > addressing the satanic symbols.
>
> Sonny, I posted an entire analysis of his page there. (See below,
> at the point marked with ***.) Why do you not read?

Your analysis 'post' is not recorded on usenet according to my browser.

>
> > > Dear Rod,
> > >
> > > On your site, at the url
> > >
> > > http://helpingmormons.org/salt_lake_satanic_symbols.htm
> > >
> > > you have used without permission or attribution an image that belongs
> > > to me. It is http://helpingmormons.org/images/sunston1_s.jpg and
> > > the link behind it is to my website, where the original is displayed.
> > >
> > > Were you informing the public about anything true or good, I
> > > would have no objection, but since you are publishing falsehoods,
> >
> > Falsehoods? LOOK FOR *YOURSELF* ! ! !
>
> John, I have. I have been a member of the Church for over
> 28 years. I have been active all those years, gone to church
> every Sunday or nearly so. In all those church meetings,
> there has /never/ been a satanic theme introduced into the
> religion. It's always been about Jesus Christ, God the Father,
> the Holy Ghost, the prophets and Apostles, the scriptures.

Satanic themes come in the form of apparent benign platitudes.

>
> > > I am going to deny you permission to use my photograph, which I took
> > > at Nauvoo in the fall of 1998, and has been on my website ever since.
> > >
> > > You have cropped the image slightly, but that does not make it
> > > yours or give you the right to use it as you are doing. I am
> > > paying for the storage of the larger image at the link to my
> > > site, it is not right that you use this for your nefarious purposes.
> >
> > Showing TRUTH is nefarious ? ? ?
>
> John, find another hobby. Writing one-liners is not your
> thing. You've demonstrated this amply.

This is simple. The pentagram is satanic. It is all over the LDS temple
in SLC.

>
> > > FYI, I have written a complete and correct rebuttal of your entire
> > > page there, and posted it to alt.religion.mormon.fellowship. You
> > > may view it at
> > >
> > >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=f36171a3.0107091940.5f88feb5%40pos
> > ting.google.com

That link does not show up on my browser. Also, I have not found it at
alt.religion.mormon.fellowship

> > >
> > > and in fact I invite you to post any defense you can think of
> > > for your ignorant and lowbrow behavior, or an apology with
> > > removal of the image and link.
> >
> > I will look to this and respond.
>
> *** John, you have now admitted before this entire audience
> that you are aware that I wrote this rebuttal.

I have yet to see it.

Yet above,
> you wrote, "Woody just responds with 'permission issues' and
> totally IGNORES addressing the satanic symbols." You should
> have scrolled up and erased that before posting.

You know as well as I do that you cannot 'erase' a posted message.

Why do you
> not care enough about your own reputation to even do that?

Reputation? I have none in your eyes. Is 'reputation' your play to
present to others? There are satanic symbols on the LDS temple. What
does THAT have to do with my reputation?

>
> > > Be aware that any response you make to me, I may post to the
> > > group, or to anywhere else I see fit, as I am doing with this
> > > present communication.

There is the threat - although impotent.

> >
> > *Fear* is ever present as a tool for the spiritually blind.
> > Interestingly, those who *see*, have no fear.
>
> I have often found that things advised via private email do
> not have much effect. The advisee just figures that they don't
> have to do anything. When it's done in public, they realize
> the whole wide world is watchin'. As the news people say,
> "sunshine is the best disinfectant".

Indeed Woody.

>
> And, this has had some effect. Rod has removed the link to
> my page, which attempted to use my larger stored image to his
> ugly purpose.

It's only 'ugly' to you.

Too bad, for my next move was going to be to
> modify that image,

Change the truth? It's very common for the 'one true church'. No
surprise. Luckily the ACTUAL truth cannot be revised.

put instead a notice sending the reader to
> a page rebutting his page.
>
> Before you take this as an occasion to remonstrate me about
> "THE TRUTH", please, realize I am the one bringing this all
> into the light. That guy Rod is publishing lies and I'm
> exposing them to the light.

Certainly, after your statement: > Be aware that any response you make

to me, I may post to the
> > > > group, or to anywhere else I see fit, as I am doing with this
> > > > present communication.

>

> > Idiots (Woody Brison) prevail as *we* allow them.
>
> Thank you for making my day. See Matt. 5:11-12.
>
> > The satanic symbols ARE there on the lds temple. Look for yourself.
>
> No. The ancient symbols of truth and righteousness are on the
> Temple, see Gen. 1:14-18, "and God saw that it was good." The
> worshippers of Satan have adopted some of them in twisted form,
> as Rod even admits.

Satanic symbols are satanic symbols. There is no twist except your own.

John Manning

>
> Wood

John Manning

unread,

Jul 18, 2001, 11:21:53 PM7/18/01

to

Woody Brison wrote:
>
> It's fun sometimes to see how critics get into funny situations
> of their own making.

It must be a laugh a Min.

>

> John Manning <joh...@cableone.net> wrote in message
news:<3B539AF5...@cableone.net>...
> > The obvious satanic symbols are being dealt with by Woody with threats.
>
> What threats did I issue, John?

I wonder if someone used your 'personally photographed' satanic symbol

in support of your position, if you would respond as you did to Rod.

>

> > Woody does not like the TRUTH.
>
> And your source for this revelation is...?

The satanic symbols are on the LC temple. More are to be included on

Woody Brison

unread,

Jul 19, 2001, 3:55:51 PM7/19/01

to

John Manning <joh...@cableone.net> wrote in message news:<3B5637DE...@cableone.net>...

>
> Woody Brison wrote:
> >
> > John Manning <joh...@cableone.net> wrote in message news:<3B539AF5...@cableone.net>...
> > > The obvious satanic symbols are being dealt with by Woody with threats.
> >
> > What threats did I issue, John?
>
> I wonder if someone used your 'personally photogrephed' satanic symbol
> in support of your position, if you would respond as you did to Rod.

I see no reason why I should allow him to use my photograph
for an evil purpose without a protest. Read Matthew 23 and
see how the humblest man who ever lived talked, when the
occasion called for it.

> > > Woody does not like the TRUTH.
> >
> > And your source for this revelation is...?
>
> The satanic symbols are on the SLC temple. More are to be included on
> other temples as is documented.

So these symbols, which you assert are satanic, are your source
of this revelation?

> > > Woody just responds with 'permission issues' and totally IGNORES
> > > addressing the satanic symbols.
> >
> > Sonny, I posted an entire analysis of his page there. (See below,
> > at the point marked with ***.) Why do you not read?
>
> Your analysis 'post' is not recorded on usenet according to my browser.

Then get a different browser.

> > > Falsehoods? LOOK FOR *YOURSELF* ! ! !
> >
> > John, I have. I have been a member of the Church for over
> > 28 years. I have been active all those years, gone to church
> > every Sunday or nearly so. In all those church meetings,
> > there has /never/ been a satanic theme introduced into the
> > religion. It's always been about Jesus Christ, God the Father,
> > the Holy Ghost, the prophets and Apostles, the scriptures.
>
> Satanic themes come in the form of apparent benign platitudes.

Let's see here, there's this church, and over the pulpit they
talk about Jesus Christ, God the Father, the Holy Ghost, the
prophets and Apostles, the scriptures. But John Manning sees
it all as satanic themes.

I suggest that the satanic overtones exist only in your own
mind.

> > > Showing TRUTH is nefarious ? ? ?
> >
> > John, find another hobby. Writing one-liners is not your
> > thing. You've demonstrated this amply.
>
> This is simple. The pentagram is satanic. It is all over the LDS temple
> in SLC.

Do some reading will you? and get some protein, too.
http://www.gothcentral.com/textfiles/pentagram.htm

Minnetonka Public Schools satanic?
http://204.72.1.245/science/lessons23/star.html

> > > > FYI, I have written a complete and correct rebuttal of your entire
> > > > page there, and posted it to alt.religion.mormon.fellowship. You
> > > > may view it at
> > > >
> > > >
> > > http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=f36171a3.0107091940.5f88feb5%40pos
> > > ting.google.com
>
> That link does not show up on my browser. Also, I have not found it at
> alt.religion.mormon.fellowship

What link?

http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=f36171a3.0107091940.5f88feb5%40posting.google.com

or

http://groups.google.com/groups?ic=1&selm=f36171a3.0107091940.5f88feb5%40pos

The second is a corruption introduced by godless demons in this
century and will not work. The first is the true form and will
grant you entrance into the cave of wonders.

> > > > and in fact I invite you to post any defense you can think of
> > > > for your ignorant and lowbrow behavior, or an apology with
> > > > removal of the image and link.
> > >
> > > I will look to this and respond.
> >
> > *** John, you have now admitted before this entire audience
> > that you are aware that I wrote this rebuttal.
>
> I have yet to see it.

You claimed that "Woody... totally IGNORES addressing the
satanic symbols", and also said "I will look to this and
respond" in the SAME POST.

> You know as well as I do that you cannot 'erase' a posted message.

Oh, so you are unaware of how to do this. Here's the
procedure:

0. (necessary preliminary) type something incorrectly.

1. (refer to your keyboard) look for a key marked "<-- Backspace"

2. (perform repeatedly until satisfactory results are obtained)
Press this key and release it.

3. click on the "Send" icon, or whatever procedure you use to post.

That is what I was suggesting you should have done -- think before
you post. That's all it amounted to. I hope this is not too much
for you.

> > > > Be aware that any response you make to me, I may post to the
> > > > group, or to anywhere else I see fit, as I am doing with this
> > > > present communication.
>
> There is the threat - although impotent.

Oh, how terrible: Beware, I may post! Oh, how impotent it is!

Shall we consider some common sense, John?

Where someone sends me a private email, I consider it a breach
of trust to subsequently post that message to any public forum.
If I'm going to do that, I warn the person BEFORE they send me
anything, so that they know that anything they send me may get
posted. If they then send me anything, I feel free to post it
for all to read. You calling this a **threat** throws a great
deal of light on your whole interpretation process.

> > > *Fear* is ever present as a tool for the spiritually blind.
> > > Interestingly, those who *see*, have no fear.
> >
> > I have often found that things advised via private email do
> > not have much effect. The advisee just figures that they don't
> > have to do anything. When it's done in public, they realize
> > the whole wide world is watchin'. As the news people say,
> > "sunshine is the best disinfectant".
>
> Indeed Woody.

Yes, John. This is a fact.

> > And, this has had some effect. Rod has removed the link to
> > my page, which attempted to use my larger stored image to his
> > ugly purpose.
>
> It's only 'ugly' to you.

It is a lie, and villification of a virtuous people. That
is ugly to me.

> Too bad, for my next move was going to be to
> > modify that image,
>
> Change the truth? It's very common for the 'one true church'. No
> surprise. Luckily the ACTUAL truth cannot be revised.
>
> put instead a notice sending the reader to
> > a page rebutting his page.

This is getting so bizarre that it's almost ceasing to be an
annoyance and becoming interesting. I'm sure that psychiatric
colleges find much training material on this and other usenet
forums. You cut my statement in half, and made a snotty
remark about the first half, finding a completely different
meaning it it that what I posted; you then INCLUDED the second
half right with it. It is getting postively Hinesian --
Dwaynian even.

> > Before you take this as an occasion to remonstrate me about
> > "THE TRUTH", please, realize I am the one bringing this all
> > into the light. That guy Rod is publishing lies and I'm
> > exposing them to the light.
>

> Certainly, after your statement: [newline inserted]

> Be aware that any response you make
> to me, I may post to the
> > > > > group, or to anywhere else I see fit, as I am doing with this
> > > > > present communication.

Certainly what.

> > No. The ancient symbols of truth and righteousness are on the
> > Temple, see Gen. 1:14-18, "and God saw that it was good." The
> > worshippers of Satan have adopted some of them in twisted form,
> > as Rod even admits.
>
> Satanic symbols are satanic symbols. There is no twist except your own.

I suggest you go over to Japan, and go into a lowbrow event
of any kind, say a boxing match, and stand up on your seat
and yell at the top of your lungs how the Rising Sun is a
satanic, evil symbol. Report back to this forum how you
got along, as soon as you are able to post again.

And also, please read this:
http://scriptures.lds.org/gen/1/14-18#12

Your continued braying on this where you don't have any
information at all is getting funny, and I'm not going
to continue to take you half-seriously.

Wood

Jesus H. Christ

unread,

Jul 20, 2001, 9:33:55 AM7/20/01

to

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! I just went to
http://helpingmormons.org/salt_lake_satanic_symbols.htm and almost peed my
pants cause I was laughing so hard! You people SERIOUSLY believe this? Have
you ever bothered learning things for yourself, instead of just going with
whatever anyone tells you?

I think the most bladder-wrenching moment was when I ran across the "Sun
Symbol of Baal". Aside from bringing many fond memories of laughing at Jack
T. Chick's religious comics, did any of you notice that these symbols were
simply either representations of the sun, or the sun with a very generic
face on it (much like ones that kids draw)? I mean, I dunno, maybe you
Mormons and other X-tians never leave your caves, but me? I like the sun. I
like the summertime when you can go out and enjoy the sunshine. And I'm not
the only one. Billions of people all over the world also enjoy the sun!
Seeing as how sooooo many people like the sun, why is having carved
representations of it AUTOMATICALLY "Satanic"? Maybe the architechs were
also people that like sunshine.

Then there was the pentagram lifted directly from the cover of the Satanic
Bible. I mean, you people ARE aware that Satanists don't believe in Satan,
right? Read some interviews with LaVey sometime. Oh wait, I forgot, you
people don't LIKE to do research on your own. You guys like simply being
TOLD how things are without ever bothering to verify facts. My bad. For a
second I mistook you for intelligent people. I'll be sure not to make THAT
mistake again.

Lastly, why don't you try LIVING UP to the tenets of your religion? Remember
Exodus 19? Unless my memory is foggy, "Thou shalt not steal" was on that
list that people tend to call "The Ten Commandments". By using a photograph
taken by someone else without that person's permission, "Rod" has committed
theft. Now I don't care if Woody worships Satan or the fucking Tooth Fairy,
he still has a right to not have his stuff stolen. Unless, that is, you guys
believe that your "laws" only apply to certain people? Woody is not an
"idiot", he is simply a guy whose stuff got stolen and is understandably
pissed off about it.

-jesus

"Do you remember writing in your diary that it did not matter whether I were
a friend or an enemy, since I was at least a person who understood you and
could be talked to? You were right. I enjoy talking to you. Your mind
appeals to me. It resembles my own mind except that you happen to be
insane."
- O'Brien to Winston, George Orwell's "1984"

"John Manning" <joh...@cableone.net> wrote in message

news:3B539AF5...@cableone.net...

Bryce

unread,

Jul 20, 2001, 9:49:20 AM7/20/01

to

Woody: Stop whining. It's a picture, not the end of the world.

John: Take your own blasted pictures.

Jesus: Try, just *try*, to get beyond the idea that everyone who
disagrees with you thinks exactly the same.

I think that Woody is working within a rather outmoded concept of
intellectual property. Yes, John "stole" Woody's picture. But unlike
its real-world analogy, this theft did not deprive Woody of the ability
to use the picture. Trying to claim sole intellectual property rights
for an image, especially when you're making it available to everyone
and their dog, and when you do not own the subject of the image, seems
patently absurd. It also seems to be blissfully ignorant of the
realities of the Internet.

John, the least you could do is apologize, and try and hunt down your
own picture of the sunstone. Or put up a disclaimer saying "Photo taken
by Woody Brison, and used without permission. In fact, he hates this
site."

Jesus seems to think that all "anti-Mormons" slavishly adhere to the
same precepts as John. That's not even true of all *Christian* critics
of the Church, much less folks like me who think John is often nutzo.

Jesus H. Christ wrote:

Posted from NetWORLD Connections, Inc.

R. L. Measures

unread,

Jul 20, 2001, 12:20:15 PM7/20/01

to

In article <3rW57.26$%G1.7...@news.uswest.net>, "Jesus H. Christ"
<g...@heaven.com> wrote:

> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! ... ...

/\ Mr. Kerry Shirts?

--
- Rich... 805.386.3734.
www.vcnet.com/measures

Clovis Lark

unread,

Jul 20, 2001, 12:53:30 PM7/20/01

to

In alt.religion.mormon R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote:
> In article <3rW57.26$%G1.7...@news.uswest.net>, "Jesus H. Christ"
> <g...@heaven.com> wrote:

>> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! ... ...

> /\ Mr. Kerry Shirts?

A welcome adversary after Fawn...

unread,

Jul 20, 2001, 9:53:07 PM7/20/01

to

In article <f36171a3.01072...@posting.google.com>,
wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison) wrote:

/\ Behold ye, the magik of mormonism.

Bryce

unread,

Jul 21, 2001, 12:17:01 AM7/21/01

to

Woody Brison wrote:

Kiss off, Woody. If you can't bother to make a distinction between the
muckraking of John Manning's "Satanism" page and more reasoned
criticisms, you're every bit as hopeless as they say.

don m

unread,

Jul 21, 2001, 1:42:02 AM7/21/01

to

Bryce wrote:

>
> Kiss off, Woody. If you can't bother to make a distinction between the
> muckraking of John Manning's "Satanism" page and more reasoned
> criticisms, you're every bit as hopeless as they say.

woody's blind devotion to the "happy athletic" smith family has
rendered him as irrelevant as darrick evenson. woody is a shill
for peepstone joe, darrick for the virtues of russian women.

I think darrick has the easier row to hoe as far as selling his
brand of fanaticism, but woody is determined to hang tough.

dangerous1

Think globally, act loco
***************************************************************
<http://www.users.qwest.net/~dmarchant1/index.htm>

Doug Weller

unread,

Jul 21, 2001, 5:40:11 AM7/21/01

to

On 18 Jul 2001 03:42:08 GMT, in alt.religion.mormon, Paul Wake wrote:

>wwbr...@lds.net writes:
>>To copyright something, you actually have to register it with
>>the U.S. Government, by mailing in a copy and claiming it.
>
>No ya don't. If you create something, like say a story, it's
>automatically copyright protected. Doing the paperwork and sending it in
>just makes it easier to get a rapid legal decision if there is an
>infringement later, and allows for additional fees then.
>

Correct. John was in the wrong, and he seems to have acknowledged this.

unread,

Jul 21, 2001, 4:05:58 PM7/21/01

to

Hey Woody,

When you stop prancing about long enough to take a breath, could you post
a factual error in Brodie's book with a page citation and the correction's
source? That is unless you're too busy hooking up with Fawn at the
Powwow.

Clovis Lark

unread,

Jul 21, 2001, 4:06:30 PM7/21/01

to

Naw... He has yet to master the use of "(u)"

Clovis Lark

unread,

Jul 21, 2001, 4:07:43 PM7/21/01

to

In alt.religion.mormon R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote:
> In article <9j9nma$otb$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
> <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:

>> In alt.religion.mormon R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote:
>> > In article <3rW57.26$%G1.7...@news.uswest.net>, "Jesus H. Christ"
>> > <g...@heaven.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! ... ...
>>
>> > /\ Mr. Kerry Shirts?
>>
>> A welcome adversary after Fawn...
>>
> /\ At least Kerry uses standard Ng format.

> cheers

I hear Kerry has applied for an endowment to fund the Ideehoe Traditional
Pyramid Construction Contest...

R. L. Measures

unread,

Jul 21, 2001, 4:50:12 PM7/21/01

to

In article <MYg67.634$AC.1...@news.uswest.net>, "Camnchar"
<camn...@nospamqwest.net> wrote:

/\ good points, Chuck

R. L. Measures

unread,

Jul 21, 2001, 4:51:02 PM7/21/01

to

In article <9jcnc6$2e0$8...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
<cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:

/\ guffaw

R. L. Measures

unread,

Jul 21, 2001, 4:52:44 PM7/21/01

to

In article <9jcnef$2e0$9...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
<cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:

> In alt.religion.mormon R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote:
> > In article <9j9nma$otb$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
> > <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> >> In alt.religion.mormon R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote:
> >> > In article <3rW57.26$%G1.7...@news.uswest.net>, "Jesus H. Christ"
> >> > <g...@heaven.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! ... ...
> >>
> >> > /\ Mr. Kerry Shirts?
> >>
> >> A welcome adversary after Fawn...
> >>
> > /\ At least Kerry uses standard Ng format.
>
> > cheers
>
> I hear Kerry has applied for an endowment to fund the Ideehoe Traditional
> Pyramid Construction Contest...
>

/\ arghh

John Manning

unread,

Jul 22, 2001, 2:35:33 AM7/22/01

to

Woody Brison wrote:
>
> John Manning <joh...@cableone.net> wrote in message news:<3B5637DE...@cableone.net>...
> >
> > Woody Brison wrote:
> > >
> > > John Manning <joh...@cableone.net> wrote in message news:<3B539AF5...@cableone.net>...
> > > > The obvious satanic symbols are being dealt with by Woody with threats.
> > >
> > > What threats did I issue, John?
> >
> > I wonder if someone used your 'personally photogrephed' satanic symbol
> > in support of your position, if you would respond as you did to Rod.
>
> I see no reason why I should allow him to use my photograph
> for an evil purpose without a protest.

Under current law, you have no recourse.

Read Matthew 23 and
> see how the humblest man who ever lived talked, when the
> occasion called for it.

I love how you characterized Matthew as the:

'humblest man who ever lived talked, when the occasion called for it."

It has no relevance to the issue.

>
> > > > Woody does not like the TRUTH.
> > >
> > > And your source for this revelation is...?

Obviously you (Woody) do not like the truth about LDS castration and
murder.

Here is the source and text (of just 'one' verification):

http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/lee_mm.htm

Chapter XIX--The Life and Confessions of John D. Lee: The conclusion of
Lee's
testimony tells how church leaders attempted to cover-up the
massacre at Mountain
Meadows. When testimony from Mormons and Gentiles pointed to church
leaders' involvement in
the affair, Lee was used as a scapegoat to appease the American
people, and protect "God's
Anointed." Lee's testimony, given just seven days before his
execution, gives additional
information on the Danites or "Avenging Angels." He details the
murders, and attempted murders,
of both Gentiles and church members ordered by LDS leaders.
Included are the willing
"blood-atonement" of Rasmos Anderson for adultery, and the
castration of a young man who
would not give his fiancee as a plural wife to Bishop Snow of
Manti, Utah.
--------------

You self righteous ethnocentric types assume that "YOUR" doctrine is
God's righteousness. You may not have awareness of other GENUINE views.
Your assumption is that of " Y O U R " exclusionary standard.

Your 'exclusionary' standard is no different in weight from any other
OTHER 'exclusionary' standard. It's simple.

Yet you continue to suggest (and to assume) *YOUR* standard for all
others. If you are so thick to be unable to see this truth, then you
deserve the lable of 'self righteous'.

And when you attempt to justify LDS, "prophet" condoned, castration and
murder, then you justify your accepted point of view with less than what
is accepted as Christian. That point of view is worth examining publicly
- when your 'church' claims the name of Christ and carries the weight it
throws around, and has its history, - ouch!

I read recently from an LDS guy that the LDS Church is attempting to
bring the Kingdom of God to the earth. But what is interesting is the
words of Christ Himself:

Luke 17:20-21 And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the
kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, "The kingdom of
God cometh not with observation: {21} Neither shall they say, Lo here!
or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you".

I notice that He said: "The kingdom of God cometh not with
observation...

I notice also that He said:

"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom
of God is within you".

Halleluiah! The Kingdom of God is NOT in the hands of humans ! ! !

> >
> > The satanic symbols are on the SLC temple. More are to be included on
> > other temples as is documented.
>
> So these symbols, which you assert are satanic, are your source
> of this revelation?

I don't know that I could come up with M O R E satanic symbols. The LDS
temple has all of them.

(snip)

M Empey

unread,

Jul 22, 2001, 7:51:59 AM7/22/01

to

Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message news:<9jcnb6$2e0$7...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>...

> Hey Woody,
>
> When you stop prancing about long enough to take a breath, could you post
> a factual error in Brodie's book with a page citation and the correction's
> source?

The doctrine of Inerrancy now applied to the One True Biography.

Actually, I have often wondered when the publisher is going to correct
the dust jacket statement about the "golden plates purporting to be
the history of the lost tribes of Israel"....

R. L. Measures

unread,

Jul 22, 2001, 12:18:32 PM7/22/01

to

In article <eaa5622.0107...@posting.google.com>,
matt...@excite.com (M Empey) wrote:

/\ One error in the unauthorized biography of Joseph Smith, Junior was
Brodies counting Fannie Alger as plural wife #1. However, Brodie found no
record of a mormonite temple wedding for Miss Alger.

cheers, Mr. Empey

unread,

Jul 22, 2001, 1:03:12 PM7/22/01

to

Woody Brison wrote:

So the page wasn't written by John Manning? My mistake. Considering
how often he gives links to it, I presumed that he was shilling for his
own site. Mea culpa, and whatnot.

Woody, you *are* hopeless. You've shown time and time again that
you're not about to let your worldview be altered by competing facts,
and that you treat even the most well-reasoned criticisms as though they
were mindless ad hominems against the Church. You've never shown any
respect for any ideas which didn't agree with your own. So if I didn't
detect the joke, it's because your self-parody wasn't distinct enough
from the real Woody to be recognized as such.

R. L. Measures

unread,

Jul 23, 2001, 12:19:14 AM7/23/01

to

In article <f36171a3.01072...@posting.google.com>,
wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison) wrote:

> 2...@vc.net (R. L. Measures) wrote in message
news:<2-2007011...@port69.dial.vcnet.com>...
> > In article <f36171a3.01072...@posting.google.com>,
> > wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison) wrote:
> >
> > > Bryce wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jesus seems to think that all "anti-Mormons" slavishly adhere to the
> > > > same precepts as John.
> > >
> > > Unbeatable insight, that sounds like Jesus all right.
> > >
> > > Wood
> >
> > /\ Behold ye, the magik of mormonism.
>
> Rich, you post a lot, but 99.99% of your material is full quotation
> of what went before with a very short one-liner at the bottom by you,
> why are you unable to trim?

/\ I trim longish ones. 'Tis best to open eyes before opening mouth.

> And of those little one-liners, 90% of
> them seem to be just notes to yourself. Would you please do all of
> us a favor and only post things that you think might be useful to
> others?

/\ Exceeding little of what I post is useful to True Believers.

> Fill up your own hard drive with all the personal notes you
> want, but spare the newsgroup.

/\ Nothing posted to this forum fills up anyone's hard drive - except
the News server's.

cheers, Woody
> Wood

Clovis Lark

unread,

Jul 23, 2001, 10:00:03 AM7/23/01

to

Speaking of "trim" (hehehe), when are you going to give me a page citation
for a factual error in Brodie's book, Woody?

> Wood

Clovis Lark

unread,

Jul 23, 2001, 10:01:10 AM7/23/01

to

R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote:
> In article <9jcnc6$2e0$8...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
> <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:

>> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote:
>> > In article <3B59162A...@qwest.net>, dange...@qwest.net wrote:
>>
>> >> Bryce wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Kiss off, Woody. If you can't bother to make a distinction between the
>> >> > muckraking of John Manning's "Satanism" page and more reasoned
>> >> > criticisms, you're every bit as hopeless as they say.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> woody's blind devotion to the "happy athletic" smith family has
>> >> rendered him as irrelevant as darrick evenson. woody is a shill
>> >> for peepstone joe, darrick for the virtues of russian women.
>> >>
>> >> I think darrick has the easier row to hoe as far as selling his
>> >> brand of fanaticism, but woody is determined to hang tough.
>> >>
>> >>
>> > /\ Woody is the ideal replacement for Russ McGregor.
>>
>> Naw... He has yet to master the use of "(u)"
>>
> /\ guffaw

Might you mean "g(u)ffaw"?

Clovis Lark

unread,

Jul 23, 2001, 10:03:30 AM7/23/01

to

No doctrine being applied to Brodie. The Woodster claimed it was
erronious and we are asking him to post the specific errors and citations
for their corrections. THe issue is not whether these errors might or
might not exist. THE ISSUE IS WHETHER WOODY EVER EVEN OPENED SAID BOOK
AND READ A SINGLE PARAGRAPH. Me thinks not.

Bill Williams

R. L. Measures

unread,

Jul 23, 2001, 4:03:37 PM7/23/01

to

In article <9jhj6n$hq2$3...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
<cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:

/\ He is not likely to do either.

R. L. Measures

unread,

Jul 23, 2001, 4:07:19 PM7/23/01

to

In article <9jhj91$hq2$4...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
<cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:

/\ And virtually certain to land one a position on a semen mop crew in
the fabled Celestial Copulatorium.

R. L. Measures

unread,

Jul 23, 2001, 4:08:49 PM7/23/01

to

In article <9jhjct$hq2$5...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
<cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:

/\ A laugh a Min. on a.r.m.

Woody Brison

unread,

Jul 23, 2001, 4:10:36 PM7/23/01

to

John Manning wrote:
> Woody Brison wrote:
> > John Manning <joh...@cableone.net> wrote in message news:<3B5637DE...@cableone.net>...
> > > Woody Brison wrote:
> > > > John Manning <joh...@cableone.net> wrote in message news:<3B539AF5...@cableone.net>...
> > > >
> > > > > The obvious satanic symbols are being dealt with by Woody with threats.
> > > >
> > > > What threats did I issue, John?

Still waiting for the answer to this question, John...

[I, Woody, wrote]

> Read Matthew 23 and
> > see how the humblest man who ever lived talked, when the
> > occasion called for it.
>
> I love how you characterized Matthew as the:
>
> 'humblest man who ever lived talked, when the occasion called for it."

I love how you reveal that you did not read the chapter.

>...

> > > > > Woody does not like the TRUTH.
> > > >
> > > > And your source for this revelation is...?
>
> Obviously you (Woody) do not like the truth about LDS castration and
> murder.

Sounds like an attempt to evade a question by changing the
subject...

> Here is the source and text (of just 'one' verification):
>
> http://www.xmission.com/~country/reason/lee_mm.htm

Hmmm, seems to me that with two lines here you are inviting
me to write another Woody Web Weview!

Now, please understand, no one pays me to do these, I do
them just for fun. And, frankly, some of them are too easy.
Any child could refute most of these bogons you are dragging
in, given an elementary textbook on logic at their elbow. So,
I'm going to have to take a harder challenge: to do it
blindfolded, so to speak.

I'm now going to attempt to refute the page at your url without
looking at it.

IN FACT, I'm going to turn off my monitor and type blindly.

<making two lines of dashes, positioning cursor between them,
turning off monitor, typing>
------------------------------------

Hell is this thihng on?

On this page we are toold that someone committttttted castration
and murder. Well, whoever did these heinous crimes, it has zero
to do with the Chrucrch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for
castration and murder are expressly against our Church articlecles.
DC section 138, the revelation on governments, states that churches
have no powertro inflict corproal punishments; only to remove
people from th list of fellowship and society. Whoever did these
disgusting things, they will face the Judgement for their deeds.
It hs nothign to do with the LDS.

But we must ask,, who did these diids? Who was castrated, and why?
How do we know? For For if we allowed every accusation as if trut,
and went out punishing everyone who was accused by anyone, society
ittself and its punishmenbt mechanisms would become notihng more
that the tool of o every opportunist who wnated to hurt somebody.
No, no, evdrey accusation must be proven before a jory of peers,
with tow or more witnesses, or other clear and fooproof evidcen.
Gossip, which is whot this gargave undoubtedly is, does not qualify
under those categories.

So, John, there is yoyur rebuttal. You read over the page and see
if I've left anything essential out of this rebuttal. And if so,
yfeeel free to supply it yourself. You need to learn to have a bit
more discretion in the things you read, and claim are true.

----------------------------------------

OK, turning the monitor back on, reading over what I wrote, I
am now going to post it AS IS, without modification whatsoever,
except to divide lines into shorter lengths. We can see some
signs of progressive nerve degeneration [as if the writer
could not even see his own output!!], so therefore NO ONE has
any right to critique it in the slightest...

Looking up the scripture, I will note that it was not DC 138,
but 134, that I meant; and the passage is found in verse 10.

Barring further real information from you or someone else, I'm
going to classify "LDS castration and murder" in the category
with Elvis sightings: artifacts of the Chinese Telegraph effect
in gossip, and leave you to struggle with how to decide when
something is so obviously bogus -- as shown by the known character
of the Latter-day Saints -- that it needs no further rebuttal.
For I think you need the exercise.

Now, back to the subject, if there is one, I'm still looking in
vain for any comments in rebuttal to my rebuttal of Rod's page.
Have you managed to navigate the url yet?

> Chapter XIX--The Life and Confessions of John D. Lee: The conclusion of
> Lee's
> testimony tells how church leaders attempted to cover-up the
> massacre at Mountain
> Meadows. When testimony from Mormons and Gentiles pointed to church
> leaders' involvement in
> the affair, Lee was used as a scapegoat to appease the American
> people, and protect "God's
> Anointed."

Chapters with numbers like XIX do not fall out of heaven,
they are written by humans. I think if you poke into the
question of who wrote this text, you will discover the
source of the errors.

>...Lee's testimony, given just seven days before his

> execution, gives additional
> information on the Danites or "Avenging Angels." He details the
> murders, and attempted murders,
> of both Gentiles and church members ordered by LDS leaders.
> Included are the willing
> "blood-atonement" of Rasmos Anderson for adultery, and the
> castration of a young man who
> would not give his fiancee as a plural wife to Bishop Snow of
> Manti, Utah.

That's rubbish, but it being gossip from a hundred years ago or
more, it's pretty well impossible to prove or disprove. So the
antis will claim it as golden truth. Which only shows the
weaknesses in their reasoning abilities.

> --------------
>
> You self righteous ethnocentric types

In other words, a racist bigot. Any reason for the namecalling,
John?

>...assume that "YOUR" doctrine is
> God's righteousness.

Other way around. I've studied God and his righteousness,
and adopted his doctrine as my own, insofar as I've been
able to learn and prove it; but I'm not infallible.

>...You may not have awareness of other GENUINE views.

Why can't I?

> Your assumption is that of " Y O U R " exclusionary standard.

Your assumption of my assumption is an incorrect assumption.

> Your 'exclusionary' standard is no different in weight from any other
> OTHER 'exclusionary' standard. It's simple.

As if there were no objective truth at all, then.

I think I will exclude this premise along with many of the
rest of yours that you have advanced from time to time.

> Yet you continue to suggest (and to assume) *YOUR* standard for all
> others.

Not at all; believe whatever you want; post whatever you want.

But, the more you post, the more people are going to figure,
ho, this John is opposed to Mormonism, if this is all the
opposition against it can do, maybe we'd better look into it!!

>...If you are so thick to be unable to see this truth, then you

> deserve the lable of 'self righteous'.

It doesn't take a month of fasting to look at what you are
saying here and know that you are not saying anything! What
truth is it that I'm supposed to be missing? Just that your
viewpoint is right? That's not truth. It's this: I don't agree
with you about the lies on the web page whose url you posted.
I'm ready and willing to explain why, with details, evidence,
analysis, as I have demonstrated; and you are always ready to:
post urls, post text that somebody else wrote accusing the LDS,
post your opinion that these things are infallible (since they
accuse the LDS), attempt to change the subject, post drivel about
love (it's drivel from you since it completely contradicts your
modus operandus), and basically avoid any real debate, and claim
that because I don't agree with YOU, I'm 'self righteous'.

> And when you attempt to justify LDS, "prophet" condoned, castration and
> murder, then you justify your accepted point of view with less than what
> is accepted as Christian. That point of view is worth examining publicly

I'm going to skip the rest, I've read your stuff before. It
goes on about the truth is within us and all, and love is
the greatest of all, etc. etc. Maybe I'll start rebutting
all your stuff blindfolded. Make it more interesting that
way.

> > So these symbols, which you assert are satanic, are your source
> > of this revelation?
>
> I don't know that I could come up with M O R E satanic symbols. The LDS
> temple has all of them.

Our Temples don't have any satanic symbols. I've gone thru
this, John, you are basically ignoring the rebuttal I posted,
and continuing to assert the premise without showing any
evidence that you've read my rebuttal. I posted analysis,
evidence, explanations, pointed out obvious flaws in the
logic, obvious falsehoods and even a theft; if you'd read
the comments even from the pagans at the url I posted,
<http://www.gothcentral.com/textfiles/pentagram.htm>, you'd
know that they deny the devil's head/inverted star, it was
not even invented (by some guy they don't endorse, Eliphas
Levi) until long after the LDS were putting it on their
Temples as a symbol of the Gospel, and as a symbol of truth
the five-point is much older.

Wood

P.S. I see that you've been adding groups to this thread.

alt.religion.mormon

alt.religion.mormon.fellowship <-- altho it's not in their
charter, I'm leaving it on because they might get a chuckle
out of it

utah.religion <-- I'm trimming this because I don't follow it

alt.recovery.mormonism <--- I'm trimming this because I don't
follow this group either

alt.religion.mormom <--- I'm trimming this because I don't
believe there is any such group

alt.religion.mormon.fellowship <-- you've got this twice

I think it's time to check your prescription again...

w.

Clovis Lark

unread,

Jul 23, 2001, 4:19:23 PM7/23/01

to

But you can bet yer first born, he'll trot out Niblet's lying pamphlet...

Clovis Lark

unread,

Jul 23, 2001, 4:20:39 PM7/23/01

to

But, RICH, the recruiting officer said I'd be product testing for a new
Cool Whip recipe up there...

Clovis Lark

unread,

Jul 23, 2001, 4:21:41 PM7/23/01

to

(Gives the 3rd arm salute...)

unread,

Jul 24, 2001, 3:03:07 AM7/24/01

to

Woody Brison wrote:
>
> don m <dange...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<3B59162A...@qwest.net>...

> >
> > woody's blind devotion to the "happy athletic" smith family has
> > rendered him as irrelevant as darrick evenson. woody is a shill
> > for peepstone joe, darrick for the virtues of russian women.
> >
> > I think darrick has the easier row to hoe as far as selling his
> > brand of fanaticism, but woody is determined to hang tough.
>

> If you have some specific questions about my posts, or my
> website, or about Mormonism in general, I will be happy to
> try to address them, but what am I supposed to answer here?
> How shall I address your conviction that I have some kind
> of blind devotion -- when I've shown examples, reasoning,
> explanations, philosophical expositions,

ahh, yes that must be "The sea is a dangerous lover. At the
present time a person who is upright in heart can travel on it."
Of course your philosophy doesn't explain all the riverboat
gamblers who were traveling up and down the river.

Or were you referring to "The guy who wrote chapter one of the
book of Job writes stuff like that and it gets immortalized in
scripture forever. I write it and it goes into the cesspool with
a half dozen antis chewing on it. Why?"

I suppose that describing anyone who disagrees with you as
cesspool dwelling satanic antis is your idea of "reasoning" but
I'm really not impressed.

> It's pretty easy to unload frustration on someone who's never
> done you any harm or born you any ill-will, but where you have
> adopted falsehoods as your life guide, you will experience
> frustration whenever you encounter someone who has knowledge
> and answers.

I feel your pain. But maybe someday you can acknowledge that you
made a mistake joining the church and start living an honest life.

> The only way to get the truth is to acknowledge
> it and live by it, and if this is painful for you, I suggest
> that you do it sooner better than later, and get on with life.
> Fighting against it is not going to result in anything good
> at all.
>
> Wood

Oh, you were talking about me? your assumptions that I am
frustrated or in pain because I choose
not to live in your superstitious demon haunted world is absurd.
Thanks for the off base irrelevant council anyway.

Unfortunately, I have a personal policy of not taking advice from
raving lunatics.

dangerous1

Think globally, act loco
***************************************************************
<http://www.users.qwest.net/~dmarchant1/index.htm>

Lee Paulson

unread,

Jul 24, 2001, 7:17:41 AM7/24/01

to

They are pesky however you spell it.

Posted from NetWORLD Connections, Inc.

Clovis Lark

unread,

Jul 24, 2001, 10:00:16 AM7/24/01

to

Nope, that's what makes it so much funnnnnn...

Clovis Lark

unread,

Jul 24, 2001, 10:03:11 AM7/24/01

to

Lee Paulson <lrpa...@xxearthlink.net> wrote:

But extremely tasty eatin'

R. L. Measures

unread,

Jul 24, 2001, 11:51:59 AM7/24/01

to

In article <9jjv1g$ptj$8...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
<cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:

> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote:
> > In article <9ji0un$jhl$4...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
> > <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> >> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote:
> >> > In article <9jhj91$hq2$4...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
> >> > <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> R. L. Measures <2...@vc.net> wrote:
> >> >> > In article <9jhan6$go9$9...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>, Clovis Lark
> >> >> > <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> >> >>

> >> >... ... ...

> >> >> >> >> > /\ Woody is the ideal replacement for Russ McGregor.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Naw... He has yet to master the use of "(u)"
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > /\ guffaw
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Might you mean "g(u)ffaw"?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > --
> >> >> > /\ - guffaw - n.
> >> >> > 1. A hearty, boisterous burst of laughter.
> >> >>
> >> >> g(u)ffaw - v.
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. Vicious Aunty Mermin taunt...
> >> >>
> >> >> > --
> >> > /\ And virtually certain to land one a position on a semen mop crew in
> >> > the fabled Celestial Copulatorium.
> >>
> >> But, RICH, the recruiting officer said I'd be product testing for a new
> >> Cool Whip recipe up there...
> >>
> > /\ Was the FP letter about oral unholiness revoked?
>

/\ If man was not supposed to munch, then why did the Creator fashion it
to resemble a Mexican lunch?

Woody Brison

unread,

Jul 25, 2001, 10:04:01 AM7/25/01

to

matt...@excite.com (M Empey) wrote in message news:<eaa5622.0107...@posting.google.com>...

>
> Many of the blatant factual errors were corrected for the second
> edition.

So I hear. Why then were the corrections not significant enough
to change the pagination?

>...This includes Brodie's original assertion that the word

> "Nauvoo" was simply a product of Joseph Smith's active imagination,
> and signified nothing beyond its similarity to "the melancholy music
> of a mourning dove's call" (256).
>
> The part about JS making up the word has been corrected, but
> unfortunately the "mourning dove" business still remains....

The latest [1995 paperback] edition of NMKMH carries this on p. 256:

"It is a beautiful site," he said fervently, "and it shall be
called Nauvoo, which means in Hebrew a beautiful plantation."*
"Nauvoo" had the melancholy music of a mourning dove's call and
somehow matched the magic of the site.

Brodie did not give a hint of where she got this "quote" from
Joseph Smith. Her footnote refers to an unpublished ms., "Mormon
and Jew; a Meeting on the American Frontier" by Louis Zucker, but
it's not indicated whether the quotation will be found therein;
all she says is that Zucker documented Joseph's "indebtedness" to
Josia Sexias, his Hebrew teacher. Gee, really?

A competent historian wants to document where they get stuff, so
others can go verify it's there. They don't want to make mistakes.
They want others to check them. Brodie hid her sources. Well,
it's no surprise; she admitted she was not trained as a historian,
despite all that schooling, and that what she really always wanted
to write was fiction.

A computer search of dozens of books containing things written
and said by Joseph did not turn up the quote. I found this:

Times and Seasons, 1:8:123 (1840 June) ...there are also
about one thousand acres of land divided into town lots, and
the size of each lot, except those which are fractional are
eleven rods by twelve, which makes elegant gardens, and fills
the definition of the Hebrew word Nauvoo, a delightful
plantation. ... building up the delightful plantation called
Nauvoo. A. RIPLEY.

Alanson Ripley was a real person; he was called to settle across
the river; then as a bishop; was rejected for reasons not made
public, and was later city surveyor of Nauvoo. It doesn't seem
reasonable that Joseph used his name as a pseudonymn. I don't
have T&S originals to inspect and more accurately try to determine
what is editorial, i.e. where sections begin and end. At any
rate, if Brodie got her quote from Zucker, she didn't so state.

I think it's more likely that Brodie fabricated the quotation for
Joseph, taking her cue from this paragraph written by A. Ripley.
Y'know, she wanted to define him a little better so she could
nail him on the blurry understanding of Hebrew she assumes he
must have had.

Either way, why are we thinking that Brodie is this competent,
good historian? She's either incompetent or deliberately
dishonest.

I can hear a mourning dove /right now/, and he's not saying
"Nauvoo". He's saying, "woo-OOP hoo, hoo, hoo". Meaning:
somebody has committed an error, who, who, who?

Wood

M Empey

unread,

Jul 25, 2001, 10:55:56 AM7/25/01

to

"Bill Williams" <will...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:<sw_67.16556$bU6.2...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>...

The word was used merely to distinguish straightforward errors of
fact, which were (mostly) corrected for the second edition, from
errors of methodology and interpretation, which for the most part
remain.

NMKMH was a literary accomplishment and is a delight to read; it's
just a bad biography....

> On the other hand, consider the priesthood manual on Brigham Young and his
> teachings. The omissions there are of critical importance. To leave out all
> of those polygamous wives, as well as the teaching and practice of polygamy
> itself, grossly (and dare we say BLATANTLY) misrepresents Young and the
> church during his period as president.

I don't really see what this has to do with the Brodie book. NMKMH
claims to be a (psycho)historical biography. The priesthood manual,
as I understand it, is not a history text but is merely a collection
of quotations from Brigham Young pertaining to various topics. Other
favorite 19th century Brigham Young topics included Federal government
intervention and western colonization, but I suspect such topics do
not figure prominently in the manual either....

Markg91359

unread,

Jul 25, 2001, 11:08:14 AM7/25/01

to

>Either way, why are we thinking that Brodie is this competent,
>good historian? She's either incompetent or deliberately
>dishonest.

She's a competent historian who may have made a few errors in NMKMH and in
other books. However, on the whole, Brodie's research has been verified by
others.

Here are a few examples:

1. Brodie originally stated that Smith was brought to trial and convicted of
being a moneydigger and imposter in Bainbridge, NY in 1826. The original
edition of her book she relied largely on the Pearsall transcipt of the
proceedings. In fact, the Pearsall transcript was a handwritten account of the
trial made by the daughter of a Protestant minister and could not be said to be
reliable. However, subsequent research verified the essential details of the
trial. We now have the Dr. Purple letter and the A W Benton letter which
verify most of the details of the trial. Additionally, the names of the
witnesses who testified at the trial can be identified as living in that county
through census records.

2. Brodie discusses Smith's use of seer stones prior to the translation of the
BoM. Other writers (including BH Roberts) have at least reluctantly concluded
he used seer stones to look for buried treasure.

3. Many of the details from Smith's early life are taken directly from Lucy
Mack Smith's book, "Biographical Sketches". These include statements about his
imagination which extended to telling stories and giving renditions of the
manner of dress, customs, and activities of early Native Americans. Also, she
includes details of his father's dream about the "tree of life" which amazingly
found its way intact into First Nephi in the BoM. One has to conclude here
that if Brodie "got it wrong" than Joseph's Smith mother did too. Remember,
this biography was published by the church.

Interestingly, Woody, the kinds of things you are always accusing Brodie of
exaggerating or getting wrong are never things which are key to the central
story in the book. They are peripheral and at best minor details. Its a hard
thing to write a book about a person who has been dead a 100 years or more. In
Smith's case it was particularly hard because you have literary sources that
are either for him, or against him. Very little that was wrote could be said
to be "balanced".

Brodie's book has imperfections, but considering the circumstances was probably
the best written biography written about Smith and may still be.

Mark

Woody Brison

unread,

Jul 25, 2001, 11:31:01 AM7/25/01

to

Bryce <bryce_a...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3B5B0750...@yahoo.com>...
> Woody Brison wrote:
> > Bryce <bryce_a...@yahoo.com> wrote...

> >>Woody Brison wrote:
> >>>Bryce wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Jesus seems to think that all "anti-Mormons" slavishly adhere to the
> >>>>same precepts as John.
> >>>>
> >>>Unbeatable insight, that sounds like Jesus all right.
> >>>

> >>Kiss off, Woody. If you can't bother to make a distinction between the
> >>muckraking of John Manning's "Satanism" page and more reasoned
> >>criticisms, you're every bit as hopeless as they say.
> >

> > You think the page was written by John Manning, and cannot detect
> > a joke, and you call /me/ hopeless? You are not exactly disproving
> > the premise.
>
> So the page wasn't written by John Manning? My mistake. Considering
> how often he gives links to it, I presumed that he was shilling for his
> own site. Mea culpa, and whatnot.
>
> Woody, you *are* hopeless. You've shown time and time again that
> you're not about to let your worldview be altered by competing facts,

The real situation is that I am aware of additional facts, which
most of the world is not. I have received revelation from God,
that Joseph Smith is a true Prophet of God, that the Book of Mormon
is true, that the Church and priesthood are Christ's, and so on. I
know these things. So, I don't have any deep inclination to believe
competing "facts" that assert they are not true. And when on deeper
investigation those "facts" are found to be full of falsehoods, I
feel like exposing them, and I have done so.

You call me hopeless. Not so. I am full of hope. I know that
the course I'm on is right, that if I stay faithful to this religion
to the end of my life, I will get eternal life. I am not hopeless.
Rather, my position is unassailable. Your deprecations are powerless
against the fact that God has shown me the truth of these matters,
and that I'm aware that philosophical arguments do not mine the mother
lode of truth; they simply sniff around, sometimes cross it, sometimes
miss.

I do not say that it is hopeless to try and convince me otherwise.
You might be able to do that. I am not perfect, I might be
fooled someday. So, I will remain vigilant and continue to do
my best to do what I know is right.

> and that you treat even the most well-reasoned criticisms as though they
> were mindless ad hominems against the Church.

I don't think that's true. I have identified many slick, well-
phrased criticisms, which have faulty reasoning.

The website in question is a perfect example. To the Latter-day
Saints, the sunstone is a symbol of hope, the glorious 2nd Coming
soon to be, the celestial kingdom, and of the unselfish,
indiscriminate love of God that like the sun shines on everybody,
good or bad. Rod asserts that it's a symbol of Baal, and that
therefore the LDS worship Baal. It's faulty logic, but it's
easy to check: do the LDS ever worship Baal? No. So what are
the "well-documented" photos of the sunstones worth for the
premise of this website? They are irrelevant.

The five-pointed star with one point down, back in the time when
the Nauvoo and Salt Lake Temples were built, was a symbol of the
Gospel, the one point down was a representation of how the Gospel
shows man the path to take. That's how the Latter-day Saints saw
it and understood it. Rod asserts that it's a symbol of satanism,
involving a goat's head. Well, the pagans say that this was a
recent invention, mostly given impetus in the 1960's, when books
like the Satanic Bible were written for a ready market. It's
bogus logic, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are not responsible
for a symbol that was invented a hundred years after their time;
their symbol is different (no goat) and they had a definite
meaning for the symbol entirely different.

Yet, the website is slick. The pics are nice, and one of them
even had a link to a larger view, so it could be viewed in
exquisite detail -- stolen from my website, which had the purpose
of exhibiting the remnants of the lovely Nauvoo Temple that used
to be. See, the methods are unified: malignant purpose, faulty
logic, theft. Covered with a veneer of pretty arrangement of
pics.

All of the antimormon propaganda I've encountered is basically
the same as this. It may look slick, but it's false. That's
because the Lord really did establish his religion on the earth
in modern times, he's guiding it and watching over it, he hasn't
let it wander astray, he still claims it as His. So, anything
that sets out to destroy it is /wrong from the start/, for the
Lord's programme is the lifeline of the human race, the only
thing that will work, and He is the only one that cares for them
enough to go thru the entire process of providing a way for them
that works, including faultless wisdom, endless amounts of hard
work and diligence, even backing up that process, the plan of the
Gospel, with the requisite personal sacrifice!

>...You've never shown any
> respect for any ideas which didn't agree with your own.

I don't agree. I simply decline to respect highly, ideas which
stem from falsehoods and faulty logic.

It seems to me that the main falsehood paraded on this forum is
this: Someone misunderstands some point, and their feelings get
involved. When the misunderstanding is cleared up, they don't
adopt the clarification. They stubbornly cling to their error,
and they try to remake the world into one where they're right
and the Church is wrong. Well, the Lord isn't going to abandon
ages and ages of careful, competent work to cater to one person's
apostacy.

The right way is to learn the Gospel. Where there's something
you don't understand, write it down, approach it as a mystery
to be discovered, not an accusation that the Lord's prophets
must be fools. Get all the information you can on it, and ask
God at every step to show you where the sound footing is.

The other tremendous error exhibited here is the mindless group
prattle. Where someone gets a clarification that could be the
first step to their getting out of the pit of apostacy, a bunch
of other fools chime in with little yappings, and these are
regarded as valid denial of the truths presented.

So, we're back full circle. Your observation, that "Jesus"
thinks that 'all "anti-Mormons" slavishly adhere to the same
precepts as John', is a great insight. All the antimormon
websites, tracts, books, lecture circuits, etc. -- all of them
are basically the same, they must dig into falsehood to find
any apparent substance.

Wood

R. L. Measures

unread,

Jul 25, 2001, 1:29:35 PM7/25/01

to

In article <eaa5622.01072...@posting.google.com>,
matt...@excite.com (M Empey) wrote:

/\ Verily, I say unto you: Bad biographies receiveth not good reviews
in major U. S. newspapers.

> > On the other hand, consider the priesthood manual on Brigham Young and his
> > teachings. The omissions there are of critical importance. To leave out all
> > of those polygamous wives, as well as the teaching and practice of polygamy
> > itself, grossly (and dare we say BLATANTLY) misrepresents Young and the
> > church during his period as president.
>
>
> I don't really see what this has to do with the Brodie book. NMKMH

> claims to be a (psycho)historical biography. ... ...

/\ Prof. Brodie's and Dr. Phyllis Greenacre's explanation of Joseph
Smith, Junior's "prophet" personality makes pretty good sense to me. What
follows is a description of Smithąs prophet personality as well as the
personalities of a number of other famous imposters such as David Koresh,
prophet of the Branch Davidian cult. . łThe sense of reality is
characterized by a peculiarly sharp, quick perceptiveness, extraordinarily
immediate keenness and responsiveness, especially in the area or the
imposture. The sense of reality is, however, impaired.˛ [Phyllis
Greenacre: łThe Impostor˛ Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 27:359 - 382 (1958)]
- "A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such".

cheers

Guy R. Briggs

unread,

Jul 25, 2001, 2:06:45 PM7/25/01

to

wwbr...@lds.net (Woody Brison) wrote:

> matt...@excite.com (M Empey) wrote:
>>
>> Many of the blatant factual errors were corrected for the second
>> edition.
>
> So I hear. Why then were the corrections not significant enough
> to change the pagination?
>

Because Ms. Brodie applied the same selection criteria to the
corrections as she applied to the original material. If it supported
her settled ideas about Smith she used them; if not, she rejected them.

<snip>

> I think it's more likely that Brodie fabricated the
> quotation for Joseph, taking her cue from this paragraph
> written by A. Ripley. Y'know, she wanted to define him a
> little better so she could nail him on the blurry
> understanding of Hebrew she assumes he must have had.
>

Or, perhaps, because Nibley had her dead-to-rights on this issue in
the mid-40's.

"Incidentally, the faithful need not be too utterly
crushed by Brodie's erudite announcement that the
word 'Nauvoo' is purely a figment of Smith's
imagination, since no less an Orientalist than
[Eduard] Meyer himself is naive enough to be taken
in be the Prophet's ruse. He observes that the word
is a plain transliteration of the Hebrew _nava_,
which is feminine (the proper gender for place names)
and happens to mean 'the beautiful.' Mrs. Brodie can
put her stuffed mourning-dove back into its box now:
her philology is of the same brand as her history."
-- Nibley, _No Ma'am, That's Not History_
citing Meyer, _Ursprung und Geschichte
der Mormonen

bestRegards, Guy.

Bill Williams

unread,

Jul 25, 2001, 4:55:21 PM7/25/01

to

"Markg91359" <markg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010725110814...@ng-co1.aol.com...

Guy makes a big issue out of these relatively minor points, which is ironic
in light of the fact that 40% of the official History of the Church (at
www.concordance.com/ldsh.htm) consists of distortions by Mormon historians
which attribute to Joseph Smith statements made by others. The changes made
by Joseph Smith in the Doctrine and Covenants is the worst kind of
historical distortion. Mormon history is a mess. It is the height of
hypocrisy for Mormons to criticize Brodie.

Bill Williams

> Mark

Clovis Lark

unread,

Jul 25, 2001, 5:01:28 PM7/25/01

to

Bill Williams <will...@mediaone.net> wrote:

I disagree. They are right, Brodie must be discredited for even the most
picayune discrepancy. But so must ALL authors and books. We already know
the tale of the Kinderhook Plates. By that alone, all the JSjr wrote must
be dismissed as flight of fancy. Andonandon...

> Bill Williams

>> Mark

TheJordan6

unread,

Jul 25, 2001, 11:03:13 PM7/25/01

to

>From: don m dange...@qwest.net
>Date: 7/21/2001 1:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3B59162A...@qwest.net>

>
>Bryce wrote:
>
>>
>> Kiss off, Woody. If you can't bother to make a distinction between the
>> muckraking of John Manning's "Satanism" page and more reasoned
>> criticisms, you're every bit as hopeless as they say.
>
>

>woody's blind devotion to the "happy athletic" smith family has
>rendered him as irrelevant as darrick evenson.

I personally believe the Smith family was happy and athletic. Surely they were
happy on beer-making day, and they had to be athletic to do all that nocturnal
treasure-digging. Some of the holes they dug were reportedly 20 feet deep and
50 feet diameter.

>woody is a shill
>for peepstone joe, darrick for the virtues of russian women.

The Prophet Joseph never said he had a peepstone, so I guess that means he
didn't, because you know he'd never withhold facts about anything.

>I think darrick has the easier row to hoe as far as selling his
>brand of fanaticism, but woody is determined to hang tough.
>
>

>dangerous1

As a good blind zealot should. "A zealot is someone who, when proven wrong,
plows ahead anyway."

Randy J.

TheJordan6

unread,

Jul 25, 2001, 11:05:34 PM7/25/01

to

>From: matt...@excite.com (M Empey)
>Date: 7/23/2001 11:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <eaa5622.0107...@posting.google.com>

>
>2...@vc.net (R. L. Measures) wrote in message
>news:<2-2207010...@port69.dial.vcnet.com>...
>> In article <eaa5622.0107...@posting.google.com>,
>> matt...@excite.com (M Empey) wrote:
>>
>> > Clovis Lark <cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
>> news:<9jcnb6$2e0$7...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>...
>> > > Hey Woody,
>> > >
>> > > When you stop prancing about long enough to take a breath, could you
>post
>> > > a factual error in Brodie's book with a page citation and the
>correction's
>> > > source?
>> >
>> >
>> > The doctrine of Inerrancy now applied to the One True Biography.
>> >
>> > Actually, I have often wondered when the publisher is going to correct
>> > the dust jacket statement about the "golden plates purporting to be
>> > the history of the lost tribes of Israel"....
>>
>> /\ One error in the unauthorized biography of Joseph Smith, Junior was
>> Brodies counting Fannie Alger as plural wife #1. However, Brodie found no
>> record of a mormonite temple wedding for Miss Alger.
>
>

>Many of the blatant factual errors were corrected for the second

>edition. This includes Brodie's original assertion that the word
>"Nauvoo" was simply a product of Joseph Smith's active imagination,
>and signified nothing beyond its similarity to "the melancholy music
>of a mourning dove's call" (256).
>

>The part about JS making up the word has been corrected, but
>unfortunately the "mourning dove" business still remains....

Brigham Young taught that Adam was God the Father for 25 years. So I guess we
need to throw away everything Brigham Young ever taught, right? He's
completely discredited, just as you have discredited Brodie for this utterly
trivial, inconsequential statement.

Randy J.

TheJordan6

unread,

Jul 25, 2001, 11:17:26 PM7/25/01

to

Matthew Empey wrote:

>NMKMH was a literary accomplishment and is a delight to read; it's
>just a bad biography....

Mr. Empey, since you're apparently an expert book reviewer, would you care to
offer us a treatise on the accuracy and credibility of NMKMH as compared to
say, "The Book of Mormon?"

>> On the other hand, consider the priesthood manual on Brigham Young and his
>> teachings. The omissions there are of critical importance. To leave out all
>> of those polygamous wives, as well as the teaching and practice of polygamy
>> itself, grossly (and dare we say BLATANTLY) misrepresents Young and the
>> church during his period as president.

>I don't really see what this has to do with the Brodie book. NMKMH
>claims to be a (psycho)historical biography. The priesthood manual,
>as I understand it, is not a history text but is merely a collection
>of quotations from Brigham Young pertaining to various topics. Other
>favorite 19th century Brigham Young topics included Federal government
>intervention and western colonization, but I suspect such topics do
>not figure prominently in the manual either....

The lesson manual on Brigham Young referred to contains an autobiographical
sketch at the front. Young's marriage to his first wife is dated and noted, as
well as her death date; and then his marriage to his second wife is noted and
dated. There is no mention of Young's other 50+ plural marriages, which
Mormons treated at the time as legal and right in the eyes of God. It's
obvious that LDS curriculum writers were aware of Young's 50+ polygamous
marriages, because when the manual was published, those writers stated that
they were instructed to omit them from the sketch by their supervisors.
Young's plural marriages were obviously omitted because LDS leaders want modern
Mormons to know as little as possible about the Mormon polygamy culture.

This is intentional and blatant historical revisionism, approved and published
by LDS leadership. So if you're going to trash Brodie, surely you'll want to
be fair and also dismiss everything every published by the LDS church.

Randy J.

TheJordan6

unread,

Jul 25, 2001, 11:20:57 PM7/25/01

to

Woody Brison wrote:

>On this page we are toold that someone committttttted castration
>and murder. Well, whoever did these heinous crimes, it has zero
>to do with the Chrucrch of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for
>castration and murder are expressly against our Church articlecles.
>DC section 138, the revelation on governments, states that churches
>have no powertro inflict corproal punishments; only to remove
>people from th list of fellowship and society. Whoever did these
>disgusting things, they will face the Judgement for their deeds.
>It hs nothign to do with the LDS.

There is a certain type of person who cannot comprehend that some people or
organizations assert one set of vaules publicly, but practice an opposite set
privately. Woody Brison is one of those people.

Randy J.

don m

unread,

Jul 26, 2001, 2:08:25 AM7/26/01

to

TheJordan6 wrote:
>
> >From: don m dange...@qwest.net
> >Date: 7/21/2001 1:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <3B59162A...@qwest.net>
> >
> >Bryce wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Kiss off, Woody. If you can't bother to make a distinction between the
> >> muckraking of John Manning's "Satanism" page and more reasoned
> >> criticisms, you're every bit as hopeless as they say.
> >
> >
> >woody's blind devotion to the "happy athletic" smith family has
> >rendered him as irrelevant as darrick evenson.
>
> I personally believe the Smith family was happy and athletic. Surely they were
> happy on beer-making day, and they had to be athletic to do all that nocturnal
> treasure-digging. Some of the holes they dug were reportedly 20 feet deep and
> 50 feet diameter.

woody got his mystical undies all in a wad when I suggested that
he had a blind devotion to the smiths.
He said:

> How shall I address your conviction that I have some kind
> of blind devotion -- when I've shown examples, reasoning,
> explanations, philosophical expositions,

He'd do all that if someone suggested that joe smith had a big
nose. But he's not blind. Just devoted.

At least I didn't get one of those insufferably stupid "woody's
web reviews" thrown at me.

> As a good blind zealot should. "A zealot is someone who, when proven wrong,
> plows ahead anyway."

that there quote gives me a burnin' in mah bosom.

R. L. Measures

unread,

Jul 26, 2001, 3:33:49 AM7/26/01

to

In article <20010725230534...@ng-mv1.aol.com>,
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:

/\ ... can't do that. Bro. Brigham was the Church President. prophet,
seer and revelator. Brodie was just another dumb broad.

cheers, Randy

Woody Brison

unread,

Jul 26, 2001, 2:37:52 PM7/26/01

to

"Bill Williams" <will...@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:<ZmG77.72066$Ro2.9...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>...

>
> "Markg91359" <markg...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20010725110814...@ng-co1.aol.com...
>

> > Brodie's book has imperfections, but considering the circumstances was
> probably
> > the best written biography written about Smith and may still be.
>
> Guy makes a big issue out of these relatively minor points, which is ironic
> in light of the fact that 40% of the official History of the Church (at
> www.concordance.com/ldsh.htm) consists of distortions by Mormon historians
> which attribute to Joseph Smith statements made by others. The changes made
> by Joseph Smith in the Doctrine and Covenants is the worst kind of
> historical distortion. Mormon history is a mess. It is the height of
> hypocrisy for Mormons to criticize Brodie.

No, it is not hypocrisy. I criticize falsehoods wherever I find
them, commensurate with the goals and abilities and distribution of
the author. If they want to write personal notes to themself I
will not critique. If they are publishing a book and maybe 10 people
will read it, I might write a line or two about it. Where they
are misleading millions it is a good time to speak up.

The errors in the History of the Church are mitigated by a couple
of factors. First, the authors were not trained historians, they
were amateurs called to do the work under primitive conditions,
over a century ago. At that time, it was standard procedure for
secretaries to finish someone's autobio for them. They clearly
note that they have included many relevant documents. Where they
erred, I believe, was in recasting some of those docs into 1st
person JS. Now that this is known, the HC is not being put up
by the Church as its official publication anymore, I believe. It
is however still fairly accurate as far as describing real events.
Your number of 40% distortions is overblown by at least a factor
of 40.

While I have not studied in detail the history of the Doctrine
and Covenants, there is an important point: these are revelations
given by the Lord. Where the first edition contained errors, or
where the Lord wishes to modify the revelations, it is His book
and his privilege. The prophets who publish it today have the
same calling and authority as the first prophet who received the
revelations the first time.

Brodie's book, on the other hand, is an intentional attempt to
decieve. She had the self-appointed mission of making Joseph
Smith look like a charlatan with no divine calling and no divine
gifts -- all untrue. She deliberately restricted her sources
to unfriendly ones, she made numerous serious factual and logic
errors, and she inserted much imaginative fiction into the
book. And, it is being touted as a serious book by a good
historian! In short, it is a fraud from the front cover to the
back, and with distribution in the millions, and with a significant
percentage of apostates quoting it consciously or unconsciously,
I will not yield my First Amendment right to speak out on it.

If you feel your unwise assumptions and apostacy challenged by
exposure of the book to strong light, that's too bad. I'm not
going to shut up on the subject.

Wood

Bill Williams

unread,

Jul 26, 2001, 3:16:15 PM7/26/01

to

"Woody Brison" <wwbr...@lds.net> wrote in message
news:f36171a3.01072...@posting.google.com...

Didn't you recently accuse Brodie of NOT being a trained historian?

>they
> were amateurs called to do the work under primitive conditions,
> over a century ago. At that time, it was standard procedure for
> secretaries to finish someone's autobio for them. They clearly
> note that they have included many relevant documents. Where they
> erred, I believe, was in recasting some of those docs into 1st
> person JS. Now that this is known, the HC is not being put up
> by the Church as its official publication anymore, I believe.

Where and when has the church changed its view of the History being
"official"?

>It
> is however still fairly accurate as far as describing real events.
> Your number of 40% distortions is overblown by at least a factor
> of 40.

I said that 40% of the History was changed to imply that JS was the author
rather than others.

> While I have not studied in detail the history of the Doctrine
> and Covenants, there is an important point: these are revelations
> given by the Lord. Where the first edition contained errors, or
> where the Lord wishes to modify the revelations, it is His book
> and his privilege. The prophets who publish it today have the
> same calling and authority as the first prophet who received the
> revelations the first time.

About 1970, I wrote to Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr. about the changes in the
revelations. He wrote back to the stake president, who let me see the
letter, but wouldn't let me keep even a copy. JFSJr made the same argument
you just did. I wasn't satisfied with it then, and I'm not now. If Section
28 of the Book of Commandments had been modified, with indication that the
revision was at a later date, I wouldn't see a problem. However, instead,
the ORIGINAL revelation with the original date was drastically changed to
make it appear as though the revision was the original. In my view, that is
revisionism of the worst kind. I see nothing in Brodie to even begin to
compare with that kind of deception.

> Brodie's book, on the other hand, is an intentional attempt to
> decieve. She had the self-appointed mission of making Joseph
> Smith look like a charlatan with no divine calling and no divine
> gifts -- all untrue. She deliberately restricted her sources
> to unfriendly ones, she made numerous serious factual and logic
> errors, and she inserted much imaginative fiction into the
> book.

I think that Brodie is much more sympathetic to JS than that. She obviously
didn't accept his claims as a prophet. Her stated purpose was to present a
study of JS's mentality and explain his history in that light. Perhaps what
you really resent is that she largely succeeded in that effort. As to her
"factual errors", the ones you've presented are certainly innocuous enough.
The whole "Nauvoo" issue you raised is much ado about nothing.

>And, it is being touted as a serious book by a good
> historian! In short, it is a fraud from the front cover to the
> back, and with distribution in the millions, and with a significant
> percentage of apostates quoting it consciously or unconsciously,
> I will not yield my First Amendment right to speak out on it.

Heaven forbid I should limit your rights!

> If you feel your unwise assumptions and apostacy challenged by
> exposure of the book to strong light, that's too bad. I'm not
> going to shut up on the subject.

Hang in there, Woody.

Bill Williams

> Wood

ForWhatItsWorth

unread,

Jul 26, 2001, 3:12:17 PM7/26/01

to

Woody, do you see the flaws in your arguments? Read on:

"Woody Brison" <wwbr...@lds.net> wrote in message
news:f36171a3.01072...@posting.google.com...

> "Bill Williams" <will...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:<ZmG77.72066$Ro2.9...@typhoon.mw.mediaone.net>...
> >
> > "Markg91359" <markg...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20010725110814...@ng-co1.aol.com...
> >
> > > Brodie's book has imperfections, but considering the circumstances was
> > probably
> > > the best written biography written about Smith and may still be.
> >
> > Guy makes a big issue out of these relatively minor points, which is
ironic
> > in light of the fact that 40% of the official History of the Church (at
> > www.concordance.com/ldsh.htm) consists of distortions by Mormon
historians
> > which attribute to Joseph Smith statements made by others. The changes
made
> > by Joseph Smith in the Doctrine and Covenants is the worst kind of
> > historical distortion. Mormon history is a mess. It is the height of
> > hypocrisy for Mormons to criticize Brodie.
>
> No, it is not hypocrisy. I criticize falsehoods wherever I find
> them, commensurate with the goals and abilities and distribution of
> the author. If they want to write personal notes to themself I
> will not critique. If they are publishing a book and maybe 10 people
> will read it, I might write a line or two about it. Where they
> are misleading millions it is a good time to speak up.

And that is why ARM exists, get it?

>
> The errors in the History of the Church are mitigated by a couple
> of factors. First, the authors were not trained historians, they
> were amateurs called to do the work under primitive conditions,

So they are to be excused for leaving "plain and precious truths" out? Were
they not operating under inspiration? Was their work not supervised by
someone who had such inspiration? You are very willing to cut them all the
slack they need. Why would that be?

> over a century ago. At that time, it was standard procedure for
> secretaries to finish someone's autobio for them. They clearly
> note that they have included many relevant documents. Where they
> erred, I believe, was in recasting some of those docs into 1st
> person JS. Now that this is known, the HC is not being put up
> by the Church as its official publication anymore, I believe. It
> is however still fairly accurate as far as describing real events.
> Your number of 40% distortions is overblown by at least a factor
> of 40.
>
> While I have not studied in detail the history of the Doctrine
> and Covenants, there is an important point: these are revelations
> given by the Lord. Where the first edition contained errors, or
> where the Lord wishes to modify the revelations, it is His book
> and his privilege. The prophets who publish it today have the
> same calling and authority as the first prophet who received the
> revelations the first time.
>

And there you forego logical argument. You have retreated into pure faith
overriding any amount of reason. I do agree, however, that the publishers
today have the same authority as the first publishers of the HC.

> Brodie's book, on the other hand, is an intentional attempt to
> decieve. She had the self-appointed mission of making Joseph
> Smith look like a charlatan with no divine calling and no divine
> gifts -- all untrue. She deliberately restricted her sources
> to unfriendly ones, she made numerous serious factual and logic
> errors, and she inserted much imaginative fiction into the
> book. And, it is being touted as a serious book by a good
> historian! In short, it is a fraud from the front cover to the
> back, and with distribution in the millions, and with a significant
> percentage of apostates quoting it consciously or unconsciously,
> I will not yield my First Amendment right to speak out on it.
>

Speak as you will. But you are starting the fight with the result already
decided in your mind. The Church is right, the History of the Church is
getting more correct as time passes and it gets edited, and anyone who says
otherwise is a fraud and a sneak and a cheat.

Look at your above paragraph, changing "she" for "he", and "Smith" for
"Brodie". The subject is the Book of Mormon. Your paragraph holds true
then.

Did you say earlier that you have not *read* Brodie's book?

> If you feel your unwise assumptions and apostacy challenged by
> exposure of the book to strong light, that's too bad. I'm not
> going to shut up on the subject.
>
> Wood

Of that, I have no doubt. At least listen a little bit, huh?

fwiw

donm

unread,

Jul 28, 2001, 9:32:23 PM7/28/01

to

"R. L. Measures" wrote:

>
> > 1. Vicious Aunty Mermin taunt...
> >
> > > --
> /\ And virtually certain to land one a position on a semen mop crew in
> the fabled Celestial Copulatorium.
>

and you my friend, as his new and everlasting mop.

dangerous1

Think global, act loco
***************************************************************
<http://www.users.qwest.net/~dmarchant1/index.htm>

M Empey

unread,

Jul 29, 2001, 3:59:33 AM7/29/01

to

2...@vc.net (R. L. Measures) wrote in message news:<2-2507011...@port82.dial.vcnet.com>...

Actually, many contemporary popular reviews of NMKMH clearly
misunderstood the book. An example is the anonymously authored Jan
1946 Time review, which stated that Brodie showed Joseph Smith to be
both "shameless fraud" and "a true prophet". This reviewer should
have read the book again.

Another amusing review appeared in the Dec 1945 Chicago News, where
Harry Beardsley criticized Brodie for being too pro-Mormon! He
thought Brodie's "background could not permit her to be objective".

> > > On the other hand, consider the priesthood manual on Brigham Young and his
> > > teachings. The omissions there are of critical importance. To leave out all
> > > of those polygamous wives, as well as the teaching and practice of polygamy
> > > itself, grossly (and dare we say BLATANTLY) misrepresents Young and the
> > > church during his period as president.
> >
> >
> > I don't really see what this has to do with the Brodie book. NMKMH
> > claims to be a (psycho)historical biography. ... ...
>
> /\ Prof. Brodie's and Dr. Phyllis Greenacre's explanation of Joseph
> Smith, Junior's "prophet" personality makes pretty good sense to me. What
> follows is a description of Smithąs prophet personality as well as the
> personalities of a number of other famous imposters such as David Koresh,
> prophet of the Branch Davidian cult. . łThe sense of reality is
> characterized by a peculiarly sharp, quick perceptiveness, extraordinarily
> immediate keenness and responsiveness, especially in the area or the
> imposture. The sense of reality is, however, impaired.˛ [Phyllis
> Greenacre: łThe Impostor˛ Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 27:359 - 382 (1958)]
> - "A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such".

Greenacre knew as much about Joseph Smith as Brodie knew about
pychoanalysis...

M Empey

unread,

Jul 29, 2001, 4:26:57 AM7/29/01

to

thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message news:<20010725231726...@ng-mv1.aol.com>...

> Matthew Empey wrote:
>
> >NMKMH was a literary accomplishment and is a delight to read; it's
> >just a bad biography....
>
> Mr. Empey, since you're apparently an expert book reviewer, would you care to
> offer us a treatise on the accuracy and credibility of NMKMH as compared to
> say, "The Book of Mormon?"

I'm happy to discuss "the accuracy and credibility of NMKMH", but I
stopped answering "please compare and contrast" questions in high
school....

> >> On the other hand, consider the priesthood manual on Brigham Young and his
> >> teachings. The omissions there are of critical importance. To leave out all
> >> of those polygamous wives, as well as the teaching and practice of polygamy
> >> itself, grossly (and dare we say BLATANTLY) misrepresents Young and the
> >> church during his period as president.
>
> >I don't really see what this has to do with the Brodie book. NMKMH
> >claims to be a (psycho)historical biography. The priesthood manual,
> >as I understand it, is not a history text but is merely a collection
> >of quotations from Brigham Young pertaining to various topics. Other
> >favorite 19th century Brigham Young topics included Federal government
> >intervention and western colonization, but I suspect such topics do
> >not figure prominently in the manual either....
>
> The lesson manual on Brigham Young referred to contains an autobiographical
> sketch at the front. Young's marriage to his first wife is dated and noted, as
> well as her death date; and then his marriage to his second wife is noted and
> dated. There is no mention of Young's other 50+ plural marriages, which
> Mormons treated at the time as legal and right in the eyes of God. It's
> obvious that LDS curriculum writers were aware of Young's 50+ polygamous
> marriages, because when the manual was published, those writers stated that
> they were instructed to omit them from the sketch by their supervisors.
> Young's plural marriages were obviously omitted because LDS leaders want modern
> Mormons to know as little as possible about the Mormon polygamy culture.
> This is intentional and blatant historical revisionism, approved and >published by LDS leadership

If the "LDS leadership" intends to expunge references to polygamy from
its publications, a brief look at the "official" institute Church
History manual suggests that they are not doing a very good job of
it....

Woody Brison

unread,

Jul 29, 2001, 12:26:09 PM7/29/01

to

thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message news:<20010725230313...@ng-mv1.aol.com>...
> >From: don m dange...@qwest.net
> >Message-id: <3B59162A...@qwest.net>

> >
> >woody's blind devotion to the "happy athletic" smith family has
> >rendered him as irrelevant as darrick evenson.
>
> I personally believe the Smith family was happy and athletic.

What, truth coming from Randy Jordan? Is it time to pull you out
of the filter?

>... Surely they were
> happy on beer-making day,

"Surely they were happy on beer-making day" is your construction.

If you could cite someone's journal showing that they were happy
on beer day, that would be evidence.

Why do you construct the past according to what you wish, instead
of finding out what it was?

>...and they had to be athletic to do all that nocturnal

> treasure-digging. Some of the holes they dug were reportedly 20 feet deep and
> 50 feet diameter.

Careful, you will give away too much. Surely anyone hearing this
gossip that these lazy people dug holes 20 feet deep and 50 feet
across would at least have a passing thought that this must be
a bit exaggerated. This might lead them to recognize that the
entire corpus of antimormon propaganda is exaggerated, and
eventually they might even come to appreciate the truth. Your
motivation, to destroy the faith of others in the attempt to
reassure yourself that abandoning your own faith was right, will
be frustrated. In fact, it is hopeless, it's going to be
frustrated entirely, so why not consider abandoning it and
repenting?

> >woody is a shill
> >for peepstone joe, darrick for the virtues of russian women.
>
> The Prophet Joseph never said he had a peepstone, so I guess that means he
> didn't, because you know he'd never withhold facts about anything.

Not correct. In his published account of his first vision, he
said there were many things he was not permitted to reveal. That
is standard procedure with every Prophet, including Jesus himself.
Matt. 7:6, John 16:12

Wood

Woody Brison

unread,

Jul 29, 2001, 12:31:07 PM7/29/01

to

thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message news:<20010725230534...@ng-mv1.aol.com>...

>
> Brigham Young taught that Adam was God the Father for 25 years. So I guess we
> need to throw away everything Brigham Young ever taught, right? He's
> completely discredited, just as you have discredited Brodie for this utterly
> trivial, inconsequential statement.

Since BY worked on the endowment, where Adam and God the Father
converse together, it's pretty obvious that BY wasn't teaching
this. Look carefully and his statements about A-G are ambiguous.
They can be blown up by antis to make a case, or they can be
evaluated carefully and shown to agree pretty closely with
modern doctrine and common sense.

How heavily do you rely on Brodie for your religious views?

Wood

Woody Brison

unread,

Jul 29, 2001, 12:36:18 PM7/29/01

to

thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote in message news:<20010725231726...@ng-mv1.aol.com>...

>
> The lesson manual on Brigham Young referred to contains an autobiographical
> sketch at the front. Young's marriage to his first wife is dated and noted, as
> well as her death date; and then his marriage to his second wife is noted and
> dated. There is no mention of Young's other 50+ plural marriages, which
> Mormons treated at the time as legal and right in the eyes of God. It's
> obvious that LDS curriculum writers were aware of Young's 50+ polygamous
> marriages, because when the manual was published, those writers stated that
> they were instructed to omit them from the sketch by their supervisors.

So, the writing of the Priesthood manual was done with care. Good
detective work, there, pard.

> Young's plural marriages were obviously omitted because LDS leaders want modern
> Mormons to know as little as possible about the Mormon polygamy culture.

I think you are entering into the realm of mind reading here.
It seems obvious to me, that this was done to focus discussion.
I doubt if anybody on the earth is unaware that Brigham Young
was a polygynist, but the priesthood quorums don't need to spend
2 hours hashing it over again in every ward.

> This is intentional and blatant historical revisionism, approved and published
> by LDS leadership.

No, it's construction of a manual to guide discussion. The LDS
leadership maintains President Young's two houses on Temple Square,
where all may see and know that he had a lot of wives. Since we
are not living the law of plural marriage at present, why bring
it up in priesthood quorum?

>...So if you're going to trash Brodie, surely you'll want to

> be fair and also dismiss everything every published by the LDS church.

Does this mean you're going to throw Brodie's book in the
trash?

Wood

Woody Brison

unread,

Jul 29, 2001, 12:53:33 PM7/29/01

to

don m <dange...@qwest.net> wrote in message news:<3B5FB3D9...@qwest.net>...

>
> woody got his mystical undies all in a wad when I suggested that
> he had a blind devotion to the smiths.
> He said:
>
> > How shall I address your conviction that I have some kind
> > of blind devotion -- when I've shown examples, reasoning,
> > explanations, philosophical expositions,
>
> He'd do all that if someone suggested that joe smith had a big
> nose. But he's not blind. Just devoted.

Interesting how you leap over the examples, reasoning,
explanations, philosophical expositions, etc. rather than
looking into them, maybe learning something, and try to
apply a blanket rationalization: my reasoning must have no
merit because I'm "devoted". Therefore you don't have to
think, just cruze on cruze control.

> At least I didn't get one of those insufferably stupid "woody's
> web reviews" thrown at me.

Woody Web Weview is the name. Notice the WWW initials. When
you go tossing phrases like "insufferably stupid", you should
check first to see if you've unhooked the grenade from the
string around your neck.

Wood

donm

unread,

Jul 29, 2001, 9:19:07 PM7/29/01

to

Woody Brison wrote:

irrelevent.

dangerous1

Think global, act loco
***************************************************************
<http://www.users.qwest.net/~dmarchant1/index.htm>

donm

unread,

Jul 29, 2001, 11:11:37 PM7/29/01

to

donm wrote:

excuse me, iwwelevent.

M Empey

unread,

Jul 30, 2001, 11:16:30 AM7/30/01

to

2...@vc.net (R. L. Measures) wrote in message news:<2-2507011...@port82.dial.vcnet.com>...

"The historical magazines have not been too kind to me."
--Fawn Brodie to Dale Morgan, 12 May 1946

R. L. Measures

unread,

Jul 30, 2001, 8:14:58 PM7/30/01

to

In article <eaa5622.01073...@posting.google.com>,
matt...@excite.com (M Empey) wrote:

/\ Historical magazines are not majior U. S. newspapers. Chicago, New
York City, and Los Angeles newspapers gave Fawn Brodie's book *No Man
Knows My History* good reviews. The only error that found in the book is
counting Fannie Alger as plural wife #1. Miss Alger was apparently no
more than a coital acquaintance of Joseph Smith, Junior .

cheers, M.

M Empey

unread,

Aug 1, 2001, 12:47:54 AM8/1/01

to

2...@vc.net (R. L. Measures) wrote in message news:<2-3007011...@port68.dial.vcnet.com>...

> In article <eaa5622.01073...@posting.google.com>,
> matt...@excite.com (M Empey) wrote:

<snip>

> > > > NMKMH was a literary accomplishment and is a delight to read; it's
> > > > just a bad biography....
> > > >
> > > /\ Verily, I say unto you: Bad biographies receiveth not good reviews
> > > in major U. S. newspapers.
> >
> >
> >
> > "The historical magazines have not been too kind to me."
> > --Fawn Brodie to Dale Morgan, 12 May 1946
> >
> /\ Historical magazines are not majior U. S. newspapers.

No, they are more reliable when it comes to reviewing works of
history.

The popular press, not surprisingly, generally lauded No Man Knows,
while those with real qualifications tended to be more skeptical.

The anonymous 1945 Time magazine reviewer clearly misunderstood
Brodie's thesis. Historian Bernard DeVoto, writing in the New York
Herald-Tribune, provided a complimentary but mixed review, disagreeing
with Brodie's assessment of Joseph Smith's motivations. Beardsley's
amusing Chicago News review criticized Brodie for being too
pro-Mormon, accusing her of allowing her upbringing to influence her
treatment of Joseph Smith. And novelist Vardis Fisher, writing for
the New York Times Book Review, criticized Brodie for her biased use
of source material and accused her of stating "as indisputable facts
what can only be regarded as conjectures supported by doubtful
evidence"....

"Oh, I had always wanted to write fiction." --F. M. Brodie, November
1975