What are we to think?
IceDragn
>: You still haven't provided proof from your claims about the Priesthood
>: manual. Why won't you do that Robert? You keep changing the subject and
>: never answer my request... are you embarrassed by the things you said?
>
[Robert Coyle wrote:]
>This question has been answered time and again, Greg. Evidently, you only
>read what you WANT to read.
Well duuuh.
What I haven't read is you replying to one of my posts with the answer.
You've replied 9 times and have avoided giving proof of your claim every
time. You avoid it, just as you've tried to side step it this time. What is
your answer? Oh the question has been answered, you just missed it.
You said the the Priesthood Manual claims that Brigham Young was not a
polygamist. That the Manual lied about Brigham Young.
Why won't you give me the page number so that I can read it myself???? I
have the manual right here. Right next to my keyboard.
To tell you the truth, I can't find, "Brigham Young was not a polygamist.",
anywhere in the manual.
Aren't you as good as your word? What are we to think of Robert Coyle, when
you call people a liar by telling a lie yourself?
At least have enough honor and self respect to admit it.
-Greg
joshman
IceDragn wrote in message <6gj11g$6i0$1...@news1.rmi.net>...
>>: You still haven't provided proof from your claims about the Priesthood
>>: manual. Why won't you do that Robert? You keep changing the subject and
>>: never answer my request... are you embarrassed by the things you said?
>>
>[Robert Coyle wrote:]
>>This question has been answered time and again, Greg. Evidently, you only
>>read what you WANT to read.
>
>Well duuuh.
>
>What I haven't read is you replying to one of my posts with the answer.
>You've replied 9 times and have avoided giving proof of your claim every
>time. You avoid it, just as you've tried to side step it this time. What is
>your answer? Oh the question has been answered, you just missed it.
>
>You said the the Priesthood Manual claims that Brigham Young was not a
>polygamist. That the Manual lied about Brigham Young.
>Why won't you give me the page number so that I can read it myself???? I
>have the manual right here. Right next to my keyboard.
>To tell you the truth, I can't find, "Brigham Young was not a polygamist.",
>anywhere in the manual.
Does it say, "Bringham Young _was_ a polygamist?
Whether you think it's right or wrong, polygamy played one of the
most important roles in church history. From the persecution, to the entire
trek west, the burning of the newspaper because of anti- polygamist
writings.
To the DEATH of JS himself, to the struggle to utah statehood.
Polygamy shaped the entire church history.
SO I would think to NOT mention it would be an ABSOLUTE BLANTANT LIE!!!!!!
That would be like reading a book on american history without
mentioning the civil war. Does anyone disagree??
Mike Kieffer
I think the point he is trying to make is that you did claim that it DID say
that Brigham Young was not a polygamist. By claiming that it did say that
I believe that you are the liar Sir. Does your logic also mean that a
Readers Digest Condenced version of a story is also a
ABSOLUTE BLANTANT LIE, because is leaves some information out
of the original version. Because something does not contain all the
information on a subject does not mean it is a Lie.
I beleive that your logic is flawed. Please address the orginal question
and give us the page number where it says Brigham Young is not
a polygamist. If you can not do this, then you Lied in a prevous post.
Also, you act as if you are an authority on Mormonism. Please also
share to us what makes you an authority on the subject. I would like
to know why you are qualified to state all the stuff you do, or is it just
hear say. Do you have any sources for your information, because
I find most of your statements untrue, or just misinformed.
joshman wrote in message <6gj645$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
Clifford Statum
joshman <jo...@att.net> wrote in article
<6gj645$1...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
> IceDragn wrote in message <6gj11g$6i0$1...@news1.rmi.net>...
[[snip]]
> Does it say, "Bringham Young _was_ a polygamist?
> Whether you think it's right or wrong, polygamy played one of the
> most important roles in church history. From the persecution, to the
entire
> trek west, the burning of the newspaper because of anti- polygamist
> writings.
> To the DEATH of JS himself, to the struggle to utah statehood.
> Polygamy shaped the entire church history.
> SO I would think to NOT mention it would be an ABSOLUTE BLANTANT
LIE!!!!!!
> That would be like reading a book on american history without
> mentioning the civil war. Does anyone disagree??
You miss the point, Josh. Coyle made the statement regarding the
veracity of the manual. Intellectual honesty normally requires one
to substantiate ones statements. Coyle has done everything but
substantiate his claim.
I don't disagree that the practice of plural marriage is an essential
part of early Church history. I just disagree with the direction
that many of the posters take with the subject.
--Clifford
joshman
>I beleive that your logic is flawed. Please address the orginal question
It wasn't my question.
I don't think you know what logic means.
To describe BY's life without mentioning polygamy would
be a lie.
deceit= delibrate misrepresentation=lie , they are the same
and you're the one who lies and is a moron.
joshman
]]
>
>> Does it say, "Bringham Young _was_ a polygamist?
>> Whether you think it's right or wrong, polygamy played one of the
>> most important roles in church history. From the persecution, to the
>entire
>> trek west, the burning of the newspaper because of anti- polygamist
>> writings.
>> To the DEATH of JS himself, to the struggle to utah statehood.
>> Polygamy shaped the entire church history.
>> SO I would think to NOT mention it would be an ABSOLUTE BLANTANT
>LIE!!!!!!
>> That would be like reading a book on american history without
>> mentioning the civil war. Does anyone disagree??
>
>You miss the point, Josh. Coyle made the statement regarding the
>veracity of the manual. Intellectual honesty normally requires one
>to substantiate ones statements. Coyle has done everything but
>substantiate his claim.
I was just making a point. He can't susstantiate it because it's not
there. The question was stupid because the answer was already
known. To leave something that significant out would be a lie.
Do you disagree?
bekus (bruce)
On Thu, 9 Apr 1998 13:09:21 -0600, "joshman" <jo...@att.net> wrote:
>
>IceDragn wrote in message <6gj11g$6i0$1...@news1.rmi.net>...
>>[Robert Coyle wrote:]
>>>This question has been answered time and again, Greg. Evidently, you only
>>>read what you WANT to read.
>>
>>You said the the Priesthood Manual claims that Brigham Young was not a
>>polygamist. That the Manual lied about Brigham Young.
>>Why won't you give me the page number so that I can read it myself???? I
>>have the manual right here. Right next to my keyboard.
>>To tell you the truth, I can't find, "Brigham Young was not a polygamist.",
>>anywhere in the manual.
>
>Does it say, "Bringham Young _was_ a polygamist?
>Whether you think it's right or wrong, polygamy played one of the
>most important roles in church history. From the persecution, to the entire
>trek west, the burning of the newspaper because of anti- polygamist
>writings.
>To the DEATH of JS himself, to the struggle to utah statehood.
>Polygamy shaped the entire church history.
>SO I would think to NOT mention it would be an ABSOLUTE BLANTANT LIE!!!!!!
>That would be like reading a book on american history without
>mentioning the civil war. Does anyone disagree??
It seems that to qualify for an "absolute blatant lie" it would have
to actually say that BYoung wasn't a polygamist.
I do agree that not giving, at least, one of the other marriage dates
for a significant wife (e.g. Eliza R Snow) certainly leads an
uninformed reader to an incorrect conclusion.
What has happened here between Robert, Greg, and now yourself, is the
result of polemics - everyone is pushed to an extreme.
Robert stated in his original post that the church said BYoung wasn't
a polygamist - this is probably based on the >lack< of information
in the Historical Summary. Greg challenged him for chapter and verse.
Robert failed to cite such, since there is no such statement, but
rather switched the responsiblity to Greg to show where the manual
says BYoung was a polygamist - this being a different charge than
first made. And now you say that it is an absolute blatant lie.
The bottom line is, the LDS church decided, for whatever reason, to
not include any of the polygamous marriages of BYoung in the
Historical Summary. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that they
are lying about BYoung's past, I would suggest that they are trying to
ignore certain things. Let's face it, they also airbrushed out the
compass and square on BYoung's tie. It seems more of an attempt to
'spruce up' the place.
see ya,
bekus
Mike Kieffer
You still have not proven your previous statement that it did say
that Brigham Young was not a polygamist. I believe the point is
that you can not back up your claim.
joshman wrote in message <6gjj9e$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
Clifford Statum
> >I beleive that your logic is flawed. Please address the orginal
question
> It wasn't my question.
> I don't think you know what logic means.
> To describe BY's life without mentioning polygamy would
> be a lie.
> deceit= delibrate misrepresentation=lie , they are the same
> and you're the one who lies and is a moron.
Still trying to win friends and influence people, huh, Joshman ?
joshman
Clifford Statum wrote in message <01bd6599$e3068960$0bc194d0@default>...
Not at all.
vody...@yahoo.com
In article <6gjj9e$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
"joshman" <jo...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
> >I beleive that your logic is flawed. Please address the orginal question
> It wasn't my question.
>
> I don't think you know what logic means.
> To describe BY's life without mentioning polygamy would
> be a lie.
> deceit= delibrate misrepresentation=lie , they are the same
> and you're the one who lies and is a moron.
A lie is knowingly stating something that is false. No one is saying that
Brigham Young was not polygamous. Thus your claim is erroneous. That the
issue is not mentioned in the handbook does not amount to a lie. It merely
means that it is not mentioned in the handbook. Is it deceit? No. The
handbook does not state that BY was monogamous. It does mention his first
marriage, but does not state that this was the only marriage.
So, your logic is flawed. In order for the handbook to lie about this matter,
it would have to state that BY was not polygamous, or that he was monogamous.
Unless of course you have a different definition about lying, in which case
you are lying because you have failed to mention where you were born, that you
are not polygamous, that you have/don't have a college degree, etc. See what
I mean? Just because it isn't the whole truth does not mean it is a lie.
Geoff Matthews, who has seen joshua misuse words before.
In other words, you are trying to make a mountain out of an ant hill.
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
WILLPROG
-----------------------------------------------------
I am disappointed by the attitude expressed here. Telling the truth is
presenting a fair representation of the subject. If a used car salesman shows
you a car, and he doesn't tell you about a major defect in the car, he is
deceiving you, even if everything he actually says is true. According to the
rationale expressed above, the church doesn't have to be any more honest than a
crooked car salesman.
Also, in a court of law you have you swear or affirm to tell "the truth, the
WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth".
Even with the rationale expressed above, there is certainly no excuse for
removing the masonic symbols from Brigham Young's tie. That is an outright
falsification.
Bill Williams
---------------------------------------
vody...@yahoo.com
In article <199804120232...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
Your analogy is flawed here. A used car salesman is required by law to state
any defects. The LDS church does not consider polygamy a defect. That is the
big difference here. Furthermore, it is not a secret that BY was polygamous.
It isn't as if you can't find books that discuss this issue (or even LDS
books!). The purpose of the priesthood/relief society manual is to focus on
those teachings of BY that are relevant today. Polygamy is not practiced
today, so it is no surprise that the manual does not address polygamy. I
suppose that you could say that the LDS church saved a few trees by leaving it
out. In any case, does the manual suggest that it is an accurate
representation of Brigham Young's entire life? No.
> Also, in a court of law you have you swear or affirm to tell "the truth, the
> WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth".
And that has to do with this manual because. . . ? It is a book. No one said
that it was complete.
>
> Even with the rationale expressed above, there is certainly no excuse for
> removing the masonic symbols from Brigham Young's tie. That is an outright
> falsification.
That's a shame, but so . . .? In fact that might be worse. How many mormons
know that Brigham Young was also a Mason (like it matters)?
Geoff Matthews, still standing by his claim.
FAWNSCRIBE
A lie is knowingly stating something that is false. No one is saying that
Brigham Young was not polygamous. Thus your claim is erroneous. That the
issue is not mentioned in the handbook does not amount to a lie. It merely
means that it is not mentioned in the handbook. Is it deceit? No. The
handbook does not state that BY was monogamous. It does mention his first
marriage, but does not state that this was the only marriage.
So, your logic is flawed. In order for the handbook to lie about this matter,
it would have to state that BY was not polygamous, or that he was monogamous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It would seem to me that to make ones history more palatable to current
believers and have what is called an *error of OMISSION* versus and error of
*COMMISSION* in this regard seems off the wall and duplicitous.
If the man was polygamous and its a part of his life why not address it? Was it
BAD to be polygamous? Was he or wasnt he? If he was and it wasnt BAD to be
polygamous, to omit the information so that a better *light* can shine on his
character today is somewhat deceitful.
It would be like someone writing about Jesus Christs life and what he had to
say and put in everything about his life but that he was married ( Not that he
was but say he was.,.to omit that would cast doubt on what OTHER things were
left out in his life) I dont know about you but to do a handbook on someons
life and do it accurately Id say the birth, marriage, death info is
important.There is a HIGH emphasis placed on marriage in the LDS faith,and in
the proper context so to omit it when discussing a key Prophet would be
tantamount to saying its not important..OR..hmmmmm it could be that polygamy
is such a no-no now it could open a huge can of worms when the LDS is trying
desperately to be considered more mainstream and not a fringe Christian group.
The CONTEXT in this is all important and MOTIVE is all as well.
Some feel as long as they dont tell you something specifcally false that they
cant be lying. Omission versus commission folks.
Maybe not technically would it be lying but this is a trashy way to promote
*truth* in the writings.
fawnie
FAWNSCRIBE
The purpose of the priesthood/relief society manual is to focus on
those teachings of BY that are relevant today. Polygamy is not practiced
today, so it is no surprise that the manual does not address polygamy. I
suppose that you could say that the LDS church saved a few trees by leaving it
out. In any case, does the manual suggest that it is an accurate
representation of Brigham Young's entire life? No.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Relevant TODAY!!!!..Oh I get it..its called revelation by public relations?
What the heck does THAT have to do with a history of a key member of the faith
and ommitting something as sacred as his marriage habits?
The man was polygamous, and WHY would that NOT be relevant?
It shows a slice of history and life at a time in which he lived thats all.
THIS is why the Bible is so wonderfully different to me. The warts, the CANDOR
in whichit speaks about the prominent ones is refreshing.
The HUMAN tendency is to whitewash anything that doesnt reflect well on people
whethere themselves or tohers they hodl dear.
An accurate handbook or book or manual on any person who leaves out the married
life of that person is incomplete!
Even a darn obitiuary names if a person was married and to whom.
IS there such fear that people will think LESS of the man?
ANd why the heck even STUDY an incomplete manual? Arent there enough good
writers to explain the whole treatment of polygamy with sensitivity and
ACCURACY regarding the Prophets without losing any PR?
SHEEESH..any writer worth his or her salt would no more leave out that sideof a
person in a writing to be studied than a car dealer would try to sell a car
without an engine.
Fawn
WILLPROG
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>> I am disappointed by the attitude expressed here. Telling the truth is
>> presenting a fair representation of the subject. If a used car salesman
>shows
>> you a car, and he doesn't tell you about a major defect in the car, he is
>> deceiving you, even if everything he actually says is true. According to
>the
>> rationale expressed above, the church doesn't have to be any more honest
>than a
>> crooked car salesman.
>>
>
>Your analogy is flawed here. A used car salesman is required by law to state
>any defects. The LDS church does not consider polygamy a defect. That is
>the
>big difference here. Furthermore, it is not a secret that BY was polygamous.
> It isn't as if you can't find books that discuss this issue (or even LDS
>books!). The purpose of the priesthood/relief society manual is to focus on
>those teachings of BY that are relevant today. Polygamy is not practiced
>today, so it is no surprise that the manual does not address polygamy. I
>suppose that you could say that the LDS church saved a few trees by leaving
>it
>out. In any case, does the manual suggest that it is an accurate
>representation of Brigham Young's entire life? No.
>
>> Also, in a court of law you have you swear or affirm to tell "the truth,
>the
>> WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth".
>
>And that has to do with this manual because. . . ? It is a book. No one
>said
>that it was complete.
>
>>
>> Even with the rationale expressed above, there is certainly no excuse for
>> removing the masonic symbols from Brigham Young's tie. That is an outright
>> falsification.
>
>That's a shame, but so . . .? In fact that might be worse. How many mormons
>know that Brigham Young was also a Mason (like it matters)?
-------------------------------------------------------
It is always interesting how believers will rationalize. First you say that not
mentioning the plural wives is all right because everybody knows about it. Then
you say it doesn't matter that the Masonic symbols was removed because LDSs
DON"T know about that.
You also say that the LDS church does not consider polygamy a defect. Then why
do they mention it so little? How many recent statements can you find from
General Authoritys about plural marriage? On the other hand, they don't
hesitate to take great pride in the courage of the pioneers.
And then there is your comment that the church didn't do anything wrong because
there's no law prohibiting their being disingenuous, like there is for used-car
salesmen. There's no need for me to even respond to that.
Bill Williams
-------------------------------------
Nathan Packer
In article <6gp5hb$eq6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vody...@yahoo.com wrote:
[snip]
>Just because it isn't the whole truth does not mean it is a lie.
>
> Geoff Matthews, who has seen joshua misuse words before.
>
i think you have it. Is this the mormon mantra?
Now we know why Mormons make such good brokers in penny stocks and Utah is
second only to Florida in frauds and scams.
--
Nathan <I think therefore I must be around here someplace> Packer
Nathan Packer
In article <6gpr13$dkm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vody...@yahoo.com wrote:
[sni]
>
> > Also, in a court of law you have you swear or affirm to tell "the truth, the
> > WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth".
>
> And that has to do with this manual because. . . ? It is a book. No one said
> that it was complete.
It is a book; therefore it need not contain the truth? A book can be
incomplete yet truthful in the part.
> >
> > Even with the rationale expressed above, there is certainly no excuse for
> > removing the masonic symbols from Brigham Young's tie. That is an outright
> > falsification.
>
> That's a shame, but so . . .? In fact that might be worse. How many mormons
> know that Brigham Young was also a Mason (like it matters)?
Apparently it mattered enough to somebody to have the symbols removed.
Now, why did it matter?
>
> Geoff Matthews, still standing by his claim.
Good boy.
vody...@yahoo.com
In article <natepack-120...@laf-0001-19.iquest.net>,
nate...@holli.com (Nathan Packer) wrote:
>
> In article <6gpr13$dkm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vody...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Even with the rationale expressed above, there is certainly no excuse
for
> > > removing the masonic symbols from Brigham Young's tie. That is an
outright
> > > falsification.
> >
> > That's a shame, but so . . .? In fact that might be worse. How many
mormons
> > know that Brigham Young was also a Mason (like it matters)?
>
> Apparently it mattered enough to somebody to have the symbols removed.
> Now, why did it matter?
Just checked my manual, and Brigham Young isn't wearing a tie. Could it be
that this is a different picture? This being the picture on the cover.
Geoff Matthews
> >
> > Geoff Matthews, still standing by his claim.
>
> Good boy.
>
> --
> Nathan <I think therefore I must be around here someplace> Packer
>
vody...@yahoo.com
In article <199804121542...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
will...@aol.com (WILLPROG) wrote:
>
> In article <6gpr13$dkm$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vody...@yahoo.com writes:
<snip>
> >
> >Your analogy is flawed here. A used car salesman is required by law to
state
> >any defects. The LDS church does not consider polygamy a defect. That is
> >the
> >big difference here. Furthermore, it is not a secret that BY was
polygamous.
> > It isn't as if you can't find books that discuss this issue (or even LDS
> >books!). The purpose of the priesthood/relief society manual is to focus
on
> >those teachings of BY that are relevant today. Polygamy is not practiced
> >today, so it is no surprise that the manual does not address polygamy. I
> >suppose that you could say that the LDS church saved a few trees by leaving
> >it
> >out. In any case, does the manual suggest that it is an accurate
> >representation of Brigham Young's entire life? No.
> >
> >> Also, in a court of law you have you swear or affirm to tell "the truth,
> >the
> >> WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth".
> >
> >And that has to do with this manual because. . . ? It is a book. No one
> >said
> >that it was complete.
> >
> >>
> >> Even with the rationale expressed above, there is certainly no excuse for
> >> removing the masonic symbols from Brigham Young's tie. That is an
outright
> >> falsification.
> >
> >That's a shame, but so . . .? In fact that might be worse. How many
mormons
> >know that Brigham Young was also a Mason (like it matters)?
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> It is always interesting how believers will rationalize. First you say that
not
> mentioning the plural wives is all right because everybody knows about it.
Then
> you say it doesn't matter that the Masonic symbols was removed because LDSs
> DON"T know about that.
Actually, that is not what I was saying. Sorry that you interpreted it that
way. I just don't think that it is significant that Brigham Young was a Free
Mason. I don't find them to be threataning, abnormal, etc. He was a member
of a fraternal organization, but that hardly matters, in my eyes. Much
like President Bush's membership in "The Skull and Crossbone Society."
Who cares? Much of the furor over Free Masons is couched in shady conspiracy
theories that appeal to me about as much as any type of distortion. Polygamy
is a legitimate issue of discussion, because of cultural and sexual norms.
While I may disagree with you on the matter, I think that your objections can
be rational. Much of the objections that I have found about Free Masons tend
not to be rational.
>
> You also say that the LDS church does not consider polygamy a defect. Then
why
> do they mention it so little?
Because we do not practice it today (why don't Christians talk about
sacrifices in the temple? Part of their history as well).
> How many recent statements can you find from
> General Authoritys about plural marriage? On the other hand, they don't
> hesitate to take great pride in the courage of the pioneers.
>
Same reason. Polygamy is not practiced today, and is not needed today. On
the issue of the pioneers, they are mentioned because history is a great
teaching device (there is a reason why they teach you history in school). The
history also offers some great examples to live by, aspire to, or pattern
yourself after. I personally admire some traits Prime Minister Pearson, of
Thomas Pain, of Brigham Young, my father, etc. This is part of the
socialization process that we all go through, but I will not go into that
(something about modeling theory).
> And then there is your comment that the church didn't do anything wrong
because
> there's no law prohibiting their being disingenuous, like there is for
used-car
> salesmen. There's no need for me to even respond to that.
? The church is not being disingenuous. Perhaps I didn't finish my though.
The church does not consider polygamy to be a defect. There are multiple
sources outside of this 48 chapter manual that detail into great effect
Brigham Young's polygamous marriages. The church does not practice plural
marriages today. Why should the church use manual space on a doctrine that is
not relevant to our time, especially when there are plenty of outside sources
(some that are even published by LDS members!)? The manual does not state
that Brigham Young was not polygamous. That is all. It is not hiding
anything (an omission itself is not evidence of hiding something). It merely
omits Brigham Young's polygamous marriages. Nothing more, nothing less.
Geoff Matthews, still standing by his claim.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
lpau...@nas.edu
In article <199804120232...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
will...@aol.com (WILLPROG) wrote:
>
> In article <6gp5hb$eq6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vody...@yahoo.com writes:
>
> >
> >In article <6gjj9e$9...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "joshman" <jo...@att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >I beleive that your logic is flawed. Please address the orginal
question
> >> It wasn't my question.
> >>
> ><this is joshua>
> >
> >> I don't think you know what logic means.
> >> To describe BY's life without mentioning polygamy would
> >> be a lie.
> >> deceit= delibrate misrepresentation=lie , they are the same
> >> and you're the one who lies and is a moron.
> >
> >Brigham Young was not polygamous. Thus your claim is erroneous. That the
> >issue is not mentioned in the handbook does not amount to a lie. It merely
> >means that it is not mentioned in the handbook. Is it deceit? No. The
> >handbook does not state that BY was monogamous. It does mention his first
> >marriage, but does not state that this was the only marriage.
> >So, your logic is flawed. In order for the handbook to lie about this
> >matter,
> >it would have to state that BY was not polygamous, or that he was
monogamous.
case
> >you are lying because you have failed to mention where you were born, that
> >you
> >are not polygamous, that you have/don't have a college degree, etc. See
what
>
> -----------------------------------------------------
> I am disappointed by the attitude expressed here. Telling the truth is
> presenting a fair representation of the subject. If a used car salesman
shows
> you a car, and he doesn't tell you about a major defect in the car, he is
> deceiving you, even if everything he actually says is true. According to the
> rationale expressed above, the church doesn't have to be any more honest
than a
> crooked car salesman.
>
> WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth".
>
> removing the masonic symbols from Brigham Young's tie. That is an outright
> falsification.
>
> ---------------------------------------
>
> >Geoff Matthews, who has seen joshua misuse words before.
> >
> >
>
>
There are sins of omission and comission.
It seems both were made.
Regards,
Lee
Craig Anderson
On 12 Apr 1998 12:28:41 GMT, fawns...@aol.com (FAWNSCRIBE) wrote:
>It would seem to me that to make ones history more palatable to current
>believers and have what is called an *error of OMISSION* versus and error of
>*COMMISSION* in this regard seems off the wall and duplicitous.
>If the man was polygamous and its a part of his life why not address it?
Why is it that you and the other critics just can't seem to grasp the
point that the current manual is designed to express _some_ of BY's
_teachings_ regarding the gospel? It's not a history of BY, and never
was intended as such. Nor does it express all of BY's teachings, since
it would have to be the size of one of the volumes of the JofD to
fulfill that role. This is one of the most useless and trivial threads,
based entirely on a straw man, that we've had here in quite some time.
Craig
vody...@yahoo.com
In article <natepack-120...@laf-0001-19.iquest.net>,
nate...@holli.com (Nathan Packer) wrote:
>
> In article <6gp5hb$eq6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, vody...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Just because it isn't the whole truth does not mean it is a lie.
> >
> >
>
> Now we know why Mormons make such good brokers in penny stocks and Utah is
> second only to Florida in frauds and scams.
>
>
Having studied white collar crime, I know that this statement is false. Care
to show where you got your refference from?
Geoff Matthews, who does have a source to back this up.
> Nathan <I think therefore I must be around here someplace> Packer
>
vody...@yahoo.com
In article <353386a8...@news.asymetrix.com>,
Well, I would not call it a straw man, technically, unless they are saying
that the manual should include BY's personal history (which it nowhere states
it should). Other than that, amen. Choking on a gnat, but swallowing a
cammel.
Geoff Matthews, who would like to know which picture of BY had the masonic
sign removed.
DunnRon
>From: vody...@yahoo.com
>Date: Tue, Apr 14, 1998 15:46 EDT
>Message-id: <6h0at9$pna$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
Geoff, there is an oil portrait that used to hang in the City/County Building
in SLC that was painted over so Brig's masonic tietack wouldn't show. Don't
know who "suggested" it be done or when it was done. Don't even know where the
portrait is now. Somebody made a big deal about it about 15 years ago. Big
Whoop.
FAWNSCRIBE
Why is it that you and the other critics just can't seem to grasp the
point that the current manual is designed to express _some_ of BY's
_teachings_ regarding the gospel? It's not a history of BY, and never
was intended as such. Nor does it express all of BY's teachings, since
it would have to be the size of one of the volumes of the JofD to
fulfill that role. This is one of the most useless and trivial threads,
based entirely on a straw man, that we've had here in quite some time.
Craig
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
******************************
Well well well..look at what the wind blew in!!..its CRAIG!!..the apologist
extraordinaire for every thing that is moot.
No one is saying that you need a fifty page bio on Brigham silly
boy..(tapping you on the head with a crowbar)..no one is saying use up 50 trees
to make paper to write all of this stuff..One is saying a MARRIAGE history is
PERTINENT to the life of one who is a founder in the manner Brigham was. Its
an error of OMISSION and stinks somewhat.
Tell you what..Ill do a sentence that wont take up much room in the
manual..YOU take a pencil and add it to yours okay..READY Craig?..(inhale some
oxygen now this may take a LOT of effort for you)
Brigham Young was married to(insert last wifes name) but was also Polygamous.
PERIOD.
There..exhale now..ya big..OH I wont say it..
ARRRGH!!!!!!!!!!!
fawnie..LOL
FAWNSCRIBE
Plus I meant Prophet not Founder..we KNOW who the Founder is because he gets
more play in testimony time than anyone else. SMITH
fawnie
wilt
Actually, the Lord is the founder - and gets much more "play" in
testimony meetings than does Joseph Smith.
wilt
Craig Anderson
On 14 Apr 1998 21:06:33 GMT, fawns...@aol.com (FAWNSCRIBE) wrote:
>Well well well..look at what the wind blew in!!..its CRAIG!!..the apologist
>extraordinaire for every thing that is moot.
As opposed to Fawnscribe, the current main proponent of the
anti-Mormons, who continually brings up all the moot points and never
quite gets it when we provide the answers and clarifications (reminds us
of a broken record).
>.One is saying a MARRIAGE history is
>PERTINENT to the life of one who is a founder in the manner Brigham was.
Again, you still miss it. BY's marriages are IRRELEVANT to the more
pertinent issues of doctrine of which the current manual provides a
"reader's digest". If we were studying the _life_ of BY, then polygamy
would be relevant. When discussing faith, hope and charity it is
_irrelevant_.
>Its
>an error of OMISSION and stinks somewhat.
Only to those who insist on sniffing. Similar to being presented with a
chest of gold and dismissing it because it doesn't "smell" right.
>Brigham Young was married to(insert last wifes name) but was also Polygamous.
>PERIOD.
Wheeeeeeeee. Thank you for that great, big wonderful statement of the
obvious. Zzzzzzzzzzz
Craig (convinced the overly repetitious fawn will never catch on)
FAWNSCRIBE
wilt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
****************
I will say okay to that Wilt,,but with an addendum:))..(you LOVE
addendums)..the testimony that Christ is true is often given a little
boosterism by the " And I know JOSEPH SMITH was true too"..HEY..come to think
of it..everyone always yammers on how traditional Christians respect the DEAD
Prophets more than the Living ones..hmmmmmmmmm..LOL..LOL
Well isnt JOSEPH dead? Brigham? He's dead too come to think of it..so according
to the LDS you s ADORE dead prophets too !!!!!..We must be TWINS wilt!!!!!
unless at the latest testimony meetings you hear a child say " And I know
Gordon Hinckley is TRUE too"..(GGGGG)
which no on eI know has:)
fawn(wagging her finger at you WIlt )
KBPOSTALC9
>Subject: Re: What are we to think?
>From: cra...@brigadoonX.com
<snip>
> This is one of the most useless and trivial threads, based entirely on a
straw man, that we've had here in quite some time.<
I agree.
Karl
Seems to be a number of useless and trivial threads around lately. (the one
about temple cafeterias, lockers and clothing rental being a good example)
clk...@mato.com
In <199804150607...@ladder03.news.aol.com>, on 04/15/98
><snip>
>I agree.
IMHO an excellent example of trivia.
+=Carol Katz=+
FAWNSCRIBE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
**************************8
If its so obvious Brigham was married a ZILLION times...and its not mentioned
that he was PLOYGAMOUSLY then why in the heck mention heis married at ALL?
they mentioned the ONE wife so his marital state was important. but CRAIG the
ever hiding his head in the sand ostrich ( and when the head is in the sand the
bum is UP for all to see)..
If YOUR analogy applies..then the marriage of NONE should be in there at
all...it WAS in there but not an ACCURATE counting..Leave it out or put nonoe
if it, but the editing for palatability by new brethren is a sin of omission.
I am NO proponent of ANTI Mormons sir...I am a PROPONENT of being HONEST and
calling a skunk a skunk when an animal with a white stripe down its black and
lifts his hindquarters to make a stink a stink.
Repetition is how mnay learn BTW..You recited the alphabet many times to learn
it..you no doubt wrote your name many times to learn it by rote as well.
TOO bad you are just as apt to Parot whatever is told you is true withoput
taking a second peek to see if its RIGHT.
Im repetitious on some points because thats the way some learn better..like you
perhaps?
Fawn
FAWNSCRIBE
I shouldnt have been so hard on you..I want to make sure I was casting
aspersions on your bum..calling you a skunk or slow to learn either..SOME do
learn better by rote though. You just RILE me up sometimes with that smug face
I could pull your hair out with tweezers..:)))))
ANyhow..I also spelled polygamoulsy wrong in my haste.I still say mentioning
ANY marriage is wrong if the COUNT is not accurate but we will just have to
disagree n the reason I say its because its isnt something one would put in if
one is trying mightily to be mainstream and not dringe..you
say__________________________________________..see Im not going to speak for
you Ill let you feel anyway you want ..even if it SMELLS like dead rat in the
sun for a week to me.
fawn(being good ALL day!)
FAWNSCRIBE
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..I dont believe it..I give an apology to
Craig and said I wanted to be sure I WAS casting aspersions on his bum not I
WASNT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!..(hanging my head in shame)(..SHEESH..my FINGERS wanted to
type wasnt!!..what happened..BLUSH..
Fawn ( chuckling at her Freudian slip and ARRRRGH)
wilt
FAWNSCRIBE wrote:
>
>
> > Plus I meant Prophet not Founder..we KNOW who the Founder is because he gets
> > more play in testimony time than anyone else. SMITH
> > fawnie
>
> Actually, the Lord is the founder - and gets much more "play" in
> testimony meetings than does Joseph Smith.
>
> wilt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> ****************
> I will say okay to that Wilt,,but with an addendum:))..(you LOVE
> addendums)..the testimony that Christ is true is often given a little
> boosterism by the " And I know JOSEPH SMITH was true too"..
As much as it pains me to agree with you fawnie - (ouch, root canal??) I
must agree with that observation. I don't think I have ever testified of
Joseph Smith as a prophet of God without having already mentioned my
testimony of Jesus Christ. I realized the Lord lives by testing the
promise given in Moroni - Joseph Smith translated (by my view - grin) the
Book of Mormon, therefore. . . But a bit too much 'boosterism' as you
say. Wow, no lightning after agreement. . . oops - was that thunder?
>HEY..come to think
> of it..everyone always yammers on how traditional Christians respect the DEAD
> Prophets more than the Living ones..hmmmmmmmmm..LOL..LOL
Several jokes come to mind. . . And more than a few can apply to me. I
was quite certain President Benson was going to have all LDS folks sign
up as Republicans when he was president of the church. Imagine my
(pleasant) surprise.
> Well isnt JOSEPH dead? Brigham? He's dead too come to think of it..so according
> to the LDS you s ADORE dead prophets too !!!!!..We must be TWINS wilt!!!!!
Not sure I'm going to speak of adoring prophets. My testosterone levels
are still too high for that - though I consider myself somewhat
liberated.
> unless at the latest testimony meetings you hear a child say " And I know
> Gordon Hinckley is TRUE too"..(GGGGG)
> which no on eI know has:)
> fawn(wagging her finger at you WIlt )
Careful on that wagging. You could give me the big one. (Clutching my
chest and making wheezing sounds)
wilt
FAWNSCRIBE
> unless at the latest testimony meetings you hear a child say " And I know
> Gordon Hinckley is TRUE too"..(GGGGG)
> which no on eI know has:)
> fawn(wagging her finger at you WIlt )
Careful on that wagging. You could give me the big one. (Clutching my
chest and making wheezing sounds)
wilt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
*******************
<G>..SMOOCH..see it makes SOME sense when you make it simple at times..
Fawn ( wagging her tail behind her like a puppy)..hahahahah!
KBPOSTALC9
><HTML><PRE>Subject: Re: What are we to think?
>From: clk...@mato.com
>>From: kbpos...@aol.com
KB>> Seems to be a number of useless and trivial threads around lately. (the
one about temple cafeterias, lockers and clothing rental being a good example)
<<
CK> IMHO an excellent example of trivia. <
Yeah, I couldn't believe "they" made an issue of this stuff. Kinda funny.
Karl