From time to time, people send me some of Dan's posts.
For a good example of Dan's apologetics, see the comments to his post here:
Dan cites John Clark's M2C theories, condescends to the other comments, and declines to answer questions because the commentors haven't read the voluminous works Dan has.
Louis Midgley's even worse comments make Dan look only slightly less ridiculous by comparison.
Let's hear it for the pilot.
Chapstick gemli2 years ago edited Gemli, “Let's hear it for the pilot.”
The passengers can all be thankful for the pilot’s training, experience and education which saved the day. It’s a good thing the pilot wasn’t busy praying because I guarantee that god wasn’t going to land that plane.
I wonder why that “woman” was so hysterical? Chances are very good she was LDS. Aren’t LDS less fearful of death because they have a sure knowledge of the afterlife? When the rubber hit the road, hysterical woman obviously didn’t take much comfort in the LDS teachings.
moonshine Chapstick2 years ago "...It’s a good thing the pilot wasn’t busy praying because..."
Maybe you gave up on 'rubbing your tummy while patting your head' as a kid, but I assure you: some people really can do two things at once.
Kiwi57 moonshine2 years ago With practice, maybe Chapstick could too. For example, he could try walking and chewing gum.
DanielPeterson Mod Chapstick2 years ago CS: "It’s a good thing the pilot wasn’t busy praying because I guarantee that god wasn’t going to land that plane."
And CS imagines that the pilot wasn't praying because CS imagines that he wouldn't have been.
CS: "I wonder why that “woman” was so hysterical?"
Is CS suggesting that she somehow wasn't a real woman?
CS: "When the rubber hit the road, hysterical woman obviously didn’t take much comfort in the LDS teachings."
Good grief, CS. The sheer strain that you're putting yourself through is painful to watch.
Louis Midgley DanielPeterson2 years ago I think it wise for me not to comment on Chapy linking hysteria with woman.
Jacob Ames Chapstick2 years ago It’s a good thing the pilot wasn’t busy praying because I guarantee that god wasn’t going to land that plane.
For someone who is so adamant about physical evidence, I'm curious how you could possibly back up that spurious claim.
Louis Midgley Jacob Ames2 years ago Jacob Ames: gemli never ever backs up any of his claims with evidences. If gemli had ever once read Aristotle on the four different kinds of causation, he might be able to see how God can and does meddle in human affairs without actually flying airplanes or navigating ships or building buildings or causing the blind to see, and so forth.
gemli Louis Midgley2 years ago How would one provide evidence for the nonexistence of anything? Of course it's impossible to do so. Dr. Midgley must know that such a claim must be backed up by evidence that is commensurate with the claim. A claim that a god can and does meddle in human affairs requires a great deal of evidence, both to verify that such a divine being exists, and that the vagaries of human desire and experience cannot be explained by natural means.
Every claim made in history (to take a discipline at random) must be verified. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more proof is required if the claim is to be taken seriously. Given recent political events, it's clear that people in large numbers will believe in the most abject nonsense imaginable, to the point of crawling up the U.S. Capitol building, if they're in the thrall of a charismatic charlatan.
Kiwi57 Chapstick2 years ago I wonder why that “woman” was so hysterical? Chances are very good she was LDS. Aren’t LDS less fearful of death because they have a sure knowledge of the afterlife? When the rubber hit the road, hysterical woman obviously didn’t take much comfort in the LDS teachings.
Jeering at someone's fear is just so mature; so praiseworthy; so deserving of all emulation.
Especially coming from someone who doesn't dare to do his online heckling without first carefully hiding his identity. What an outstanding example of moral courage!
tangata neneva Kiwi572 years ago The interesting thing is, I jumped (I know wrongly so) to the opposite conclusion. Considering that:
1) In the army I found the non-believers to be the one that struggled with the heat of combat. The believers were always pretty calm.
2) 50% of St George residents are not Latter-day Saints (Dixie State U [soon to have a name change]) students and a lot of move ins.
3) Utahn's rarely fly to St George. It is an easy drive if you have the time. So maybe the woman was an out of state passenger coming to vacate?Kiwi57 tangata neneva2 years ago I'm sure the possibilities are endless. But bigots and demagogues, like the brave dipstick, always rely upon stereotypes.
Kiwi57 gemli2 years ago edited Yes, indeed.
I'm glad to see you agree with President Nelson about something. It vastly increases your chances of getting something right, for a change.
Louis Midgley gemli2 years ago edited Dear dogmatic gemli: Please explain why it makes any real difference to a kind of mere slightly sentient large cockroach as you have been insisting that you are certain that this is all there is to human beings?
gemli Louis Midgley2 years ago We are not sentient cockroaches, one recent former president notwithstanding. We are slightly more sentient apes, made of the same stuff and behaving in similar ways as the hairier variety. More precise vocal capabilities (due more than likely to our acquiring the foxp2 gene) advantaged the evolution of a larger brain capable of communicating with more precision, as well as allowing stories to be told that were not tied to physical reality.
The fact that there is not a scrap of physical evidence for the stories of actual angels, gods and other "beings," despite the widespread and varied claims of such evidence, indicates that such beings exist only in these stories. The fact that people have imagined a huge variety of supernatural beings and afterlives is not evidence of their existence, but of a common pattern of wishful thinking designed to assuage our fear of death.
Dying is not something we look forward to, but death is a piece of cake. There's literally no way to get it wrong. So theists should relax and not waste time doing the recitations and gyrations designed to get them to the afterlife.
moonshine gemli2 years ago The fact that there is not a scrap of physical evidence for the stories of actual angels, gods and other "beings,"
What would actually count as physical evidence to you? The plates?
Would you actually give Joseph Smith a single consideration if you handled the gold plates yourself and someone wearing a shiny SCIENCE! badge ran a mystery test and said, "Yep this gold dates from roughly 600 BC?" Or would you find some other way to write him off as a charlatan? Whatever, he got lucky!Not a single thing would actually convince you, gemli. You said yourself on this forum that if you DID see a divine manifestation, you'd discount it as hallucinatory or that you had gone crazy.
Have you every actually tried praying? Have you ever offered a sincere, searching prayer in your life? Not a "strike me down if you're real" ploy. Like, talked for real to Him, on the chance He might be real?
There's a reason a lot of us are here, saying the things we say. And it's not because we just took someone else's word for it.
gemli moonshine2 years ago No sincere believer in any of the scores of discrepant theological claims thinks that their belief is untrue. They can persist in their beliefs because there is no evidence that would certify any of them. Somehow, lack of evidence makes belief far more persistent. Such belief requires commitment, and must be defended, which make people believe all the more fervently.
Yes, neither golden plates nor actual evidence of past civilizations as purportedly described in them ever existed. Neither did Adam and Eve, or a garden, or a snake. There are endless such claims that have nothing to do with actual beings or events, and everything to do with human psychology.
DanielPeterson Mod gemli2 years ago gemli: "Yes, neither golden plates nor actual evidence of past civilizations as purportedly described in them ever existed."
Considerable evidence indicates otherwise. You refuse even to look at it, though, which renders your opinion on the matter absolutely worthless.
gemli DanielPeterson2 years ago No, there is not considerable credible evidence. If there were, both religious and non-religious people would support their existence.
Kiwi57 gemli2 years ago No, there is not considerable credible evidence. If there were, both religious and non-religious people would support their existence.
Rubbish. There would always be at least two groups of people who would not.
1. Those who don't know anything about it. This is by far the largest group in relation to just about any subject. People learn about what interests them, and a great many people don't care about past events, religious artefacts, or both.
2. Those who refuse to know anything about it. This is a much smaller group, consisting of the stubbornly ignorant. I'm sure you know at least one person just like that. Someone who made up his mind at a very early age that there just ain't no such thing, not nohow, neither. Someone who is convinced that his 11-year-old self couldn't possibly be wrong, so that anything that might challenge his pre-adolescent prejudices couldn't possibly be right; and therefore, any evidence that suggests that there is anything mistaken or inadequate about those prejudices must be excluded, by any dodge, however desperate.But the fact is that there is indeed considerable evidence regarding the existence of the Plates, and all of it is affirmative. You'll never see it, because you're too terrified of it. But others can.
Louis Midgley Kiwi572 years ago edited I also happen to know one person who refuses to know a thing about the actual beliefs and history of Jewish, Christian and Islamic faith. And who has many, many dozens of times boasted that he does not care to know a thing about the faith of Latter-day Saints. And who constantly demonstrates that he has tried hard to know as little as possible about our faith. Please notice how carefully I avoided mentioning gemli, who insists that there cannot be evidence, since history is bunk.
Jack Guest2 years ago Fred, IMO, what we've learned about those ancient civilizations over the years is evidence that the Book of Mormon has always been correct with regard to its portrayal of large complex civilizations existing on this continent in the past. A lot of folks in the early days thought the BoM was quite imaginative on that point--laughable really. But now we can see that it has been vindicated on that particular claim.
With regard to your second paragraph--I like to imagine archaeologists in the distant future discovering evidence of a very large civilization within the boundaries of the U.S.--and then asking myself: what would they find in the intermountain west that would compel them to believe that an entirely different people and culture existed there as compared to the surrounding areas?
DanielPeterson Mod Guest2 years ago FK: From the Book of Mormon we get other, supposedly large civilizations, existing in a supposedly specific area for thousands of years. Yet, not one scrap of physical evidence has been found, even though these civilizations were living in the same area."
John Clark's comment is directly relevant to that point.
It's odd that you're unfamiliar with it, and that you don't care to know about it.
Kiwi57 DanielPeterson2 years ago John Clark's comment is directly relevant to that point.
It's odd that you're unfamiliar with it, and that you don't care to know about it.See my comment, "Those who refuse to know anything about it," above.
tangata neneva Louis Midgley2 years ago Now, I am wondering if I should work with CSTE to get a case definition for gemili-itis and add it to mandatory reporting statute?
DanielPeterson Mod Guest2 years ago FK: "Please point to anything Dr. Clark has published in an archeological journal where he makes the case for zero physical evidence."
But, poor fellow, that's precisely the point of his comment!
Why do you insist on bloviating about a subject on which you refuse to inform yourself? Is gemli contagious?
DanielPeterson Mod Guest2 years ago FK: "Do you truly believe that a "comment" by someone is enough to explain away the total lack of evidence for a civilization, numbering in the millions? Perhaps in your world."
I'm playing with you, FK. I'm astonished at your gemli-like insistence on commenting unfavorably on the beliefs of other people without taking much if any effort to understand those beliefs.
Professor Clark's comment doesn't "explain away the total lack of evidence." It recasts the issue in a way that more or less dissolves it.
If I thought that you were seriously interested in understanding our position, I would help you out. But I don't.
Louis Midgley Guest2 years ago I am confident that a bald assertion by someone like Fred Kratz, who most likely has exactly no training in any academic discipline relevant to the comments he makes, need not be taken seriously.
Kiwi57 Guest2 years ago edited I take physical evidence seriously when someone makes a bald assertion.
And what "bald assertion" is that?
Louis Midgley Guest2 years ago edited Fred Kratz seems to actually want Professor Peterson to "Please point to anything Dr. Clark has published in an archeological journal where he makes the case for zero physical evidence." The fact is that John Clark believes that there a great deal of "physical evidence" supporting the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica, but zero evidence in the Great Lakes area. I just happen to own a book entitled Remembrance and Return, in which on pages 213-256, John Clark sets out evidence that Fred Kratz should and even could read if he really wants to know something about the Book of Mormon in Mesoamerica.
Kiwi57 Guest2 years ago The definition undoubtedly means a great deal more to someone consistently willing to label others.
He deflected.
Churchill defined a fanatic as someone who "can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
Tell us the shoe doesn't fit, Kratz.
Kiwi57 Guest2 years ago I remind you that Sic et Non is not a public message board, Kratz. Sic et Non is a blog. It has a POV, because the owner has a POV. Given that the POV here so enrages you, I'm sure it would be better for your blood pressure to go and find a forum that is more congenial to your narrow, censorious views.
DanielPeterson Mod Guest2 years ago FK: "Has he published anything in an archeological journal regarding this great deal of physical evidence for millions of Jaredites or Lehites?"
He's published a great deal in archaeological journals, and has done some LDS-oriented publishing. I hope you'll read it someday.
Louis Midgley Guest2 years ago edited Fred Kratz is stuck in repeat. It might be getting close for him to go to the Sin Bin for a while so he can figure out if he really needs to post comments on sic et non.
DanielPeterson Mod Guest2 years ago If students refuse to read the assigned texts, should they be allowed to commandeer class time for questions that others have already answered for themselves?
Kiwi57 Guest2 years ago Is that what you did with students who asked uncomfortable questions?
If you really believe your (completely rhetorical) questions are "uncomfortable," then I need to introduce you to two gentlemen who may be able to help: Dr Dunning and Dr Kruger.
his comment was deleted.
Kiwi57 Guest2 years ago edited No, Churchill is still relevant: you can't change your mind and won't change the subject, much like Noel. But Dunning and Kruger are relevant, too: you don't know enough to realise just how little you know. Much like gemli.
Louis Midgley Guest2 years ago edited Fred Kratz is not able to ask what he describes as "uncomfortable questions."
Kiwi57 Guest2 years ago What I am asking is where is the evidence for those millions and millions of literate, city building, gold, silver, brass, bronze, and steel using Jaredites who lived for a thousand plus years in a small geographic location after crossing the Pacific in eight sail-less water tight barges against prevailing currents and trade winds?
You really are just relying upon bluff, aren't you?
Kiwi57 Guest2 years ago I would love to read your personal take on this Jaredite barge building/year-long ocean voyage, or anyone else's.
But would you, though?
Dan keeps recommending things for you to read about your various obsessions, and you refuse to read any of them.
Is that so that you can maintain the illusion that those things "defy common sense?"
Kiwi57 Guest2 years ago You keep repeating the questions which they address, quite as if no response had been given. That is, you don't respond as if you disagree with (for instance) John Clark, but as if you are simply unfamiliar with what he wrote. Either you haven't read them, or you are not engaging this discussion in good faith.
Which is it?
DanielPeterson Mod Guest2 years ago FK: "John Clark must have all the answers."
He has some -- including some that answer questions in which you claim to have an interest.
FK: "How does he explain a lack of evidence for millions and millions of Jaredites?"
Find out!
DanielPeterson Mod Guest2 years ago It's not hidden, FK.
If I thought you were sincere, I would put some effort into preparing a reading list for you.
I've long since concluded, however, that you aren't. So I'm not inclined to do that.
You can easily do it on your own.
Kiwi57 Guest2 years ago edited And of course, there's not the slightest hint of anger evident in that outburst. :)
The "trade winds" are equatorial, of course. In the temperate zones, the prevailing winds are westerlies, of course.
For more information, Google "Great Circle route."
Have you ever truly thought about how unreasonable this barge story is? There are so many problems, it's a wonder anyone takes the story seriously.
Do you really have no working sense of irony left? You say that, and yet you take it so seriously that you just can't bear to let it go. You "can't change your mind and won't change the subject," as Churchill said.
Louis Midgley Guest2 years ago Fred Kratz: Please do a little search and you will discover that not all that much is known about the people we call Olmecs, since they called themselves Xi, if they were from somewhere in China or some other name, if they were from Africa. The fact is that, much like gemli, you refuse to read the answers to you questions, which are not genuine questions by actually assertions that you think, wrongly, should damage or even destroy the faith of Latter-day Saints. I strongly urge you to play in your own little sandbox, and cease being a pest on sic et non.
DanielPeterson Mod Guest2 years ago FK: "What I am asking is where is the evidence for those millions and millions of literate, city building, gold, silver, brass, bronze, and steel using Jaredites who lived for a thousand plus years in a small geographic location after crossing the Pacific in eight sail-less water tight barges against prevailing currents and trade winds?"
That one simple comment from John Clark would help you so very, very much! And yet you don't care.
FK: "After all, the people called Olmecs, their carved heads and remnant cities have been found."
Indeed!
gemli Kiwi572 years ago You're welcome to believe anything you like. All religions cling to different miraculous claims, and believers will literally fight to the death to defend conflicting beliefs. This is the only way to settle such conflicts because there's no way to demonstrate the truth of one claim over the other. That's because they're all products of the imagination.
When I hear these discrepant tales of gods, angels, demons, "golden plates" and all the rest the last thing I feel is "terror." What I feel is bewilderment. There's no evidence of gods, angels, golden plates, walking on water, living forever and all the other imaginary claims that theists make to alleviate their terror of actual and final death. Meh. Get used to it. We die. It's the fate of every living thing. It's nothing to be happy about (usually), but it's not the end of the world.
My beliefs were shared by Freud, Albert Camus, Paul Dirac, Richard Feynman, Stephen Hawking and Bertrand Russell, just to name a few, so I'm not the only one harboring ignorant pre-adolescent prejudices. I'm OK with that.
DanielPeterson Mod gemli2 years ago gemli: "There's no evidence of gods, angels, golden plates"
"Spouting off before listening to the facts is both shameful and foolish." (Proverbs 18:13, New Living Translation)
gemli DanielPeterson2 years ago There are claims of facts, and the claims rely on the preemptive belief that spirit beings exist. So to use such claims to prove the existence of spirit beings is a fallacy.
Kiwi57 gemli2 years ago There are claims of facts, and the claims rely on the preemptive belief that spirit beings exist. So to use such claims to prove the existence of spirit beings is a fallacy.
Wrong. But thanks for playing.
There are reports of events and artefacts. These reports are evidence. Multiple reports that the witnesses maintain over time, without any obvious motive to lie, are good evidence.
If the events happened and the artefacts existed, that may, in turn, be evidence in support of the existence of what uninformed people lazily and inaccurately describe as "spirit beings." But the reports do not "rely on the preemptive[sic] belief that spirit beings exist." They rely only upon the events.
There is, however, a fallacy in view: namely, the fallacy that assumptions are evidence.
They are not.
Your prejudice against reports of events and artefacts that threaten your assumptions does not weigh against those reports.
Sorry.
gemli Kiwi572 years ago How do we know that the witnesses saw and handled the plates? This tale has grown in the telling, like all fables.
Smith was certainly an honorable fellow, only having been arrested forty-two times for perpetrating various frauds in four states. But I'm sure this time he was telling the truth, because it's so obvious. Of course there are gods and angels and spirits and all sorts of beings that provide golden plates containing stories of civilizations that lived in North America and yet left no physical trace or record of their existence.
It's the people who doubt such stories that have to prove that they didn't exist. The fact that it's impossible to prove that anything didn't exist is irrelevant.
DanielPeterson Mod gemli2 years ago gemli: "How do we know that the witnesses saw and handled the plates?"
Eleven official witnesses and roughly half a dozen unofficial witnesses testified -- repeatedly, for sixty years -- about their experiences. Nothing, except your own rigid and closed-minded dogmatism, prevents you from examining the evidence on this score.
gemli: "This tale has grown in the telling, like all fables."
Actually, it hasn't. As you could know, were you willing to know things.
gemli: "Smith was certainly an honorable fellow, only having been arrested forty-two times for perpetrating various frauds in four states."
Excellent research has been done (and much of it has been published) on Joseph Smith's legal history. You could know this, if you weren't completely unwilling to know it.
"Whoever answers before listening, theirs is folly and shame." (Proverbs 18:13, New American Bible, Revised Edition)
gemli DanielPeterson2 years ago There are witnesses to magic tricks today who swear that what they saw could not have been faked. I can only imagine what sort of skepticism superstitious townspeople in the 1800's would bring to claims of spirit beings and magical artifacts if they were not presented as a trick, but as an actual miraculous event.
Psychological researchers know that superstitions grow in the telling. Every magician knows that a simple card trick becomes a miracle if someone who was fooled relates the story to another. The viewing of a "miracle" grants status to the viewer. They become invested in their tale, and will never admit that they were fooled.
Yes, there has been excellent research by many people made of Joseph Smith's legal history. There would be very little such research to do on mine, because there's nothing to research.
DanielPeterson Mod gemli2 years ago edited gemli: "There are claims of facts, and the claims rely on the preemptive belief that spirit beings exist."
The claim of the Eight Witnesses absolutely does not depend upon a presumption that angels exist.
You would know this, if you would ever take the trouble to make yourself even minimally informed on this subject.
"Answering before listening is both stupid and rude." (Proverbs 18:13, The Message)
gemli DanielPeterson2 years ago I'm fairly well informed about the real world, and about the psychology of belief.
I'm always surprised that theists can believe completely discrepant and conflicting "truths" and still band together when atheists point out their foolish inconsistencies.
DanielPeterson Mod gemli2 years ago gemli: I'm fairly well informed about the real world"
On the question of the plates and the witnesses to them, your boast is completely vacuous.
gemli DanielPeterson2 years ago I said the real world, not the scores of conflicting supernatural worlds that people have created out of their imaginations.
DanielPeterson Mod gemli2 years ago gemli: "I said the real world, not the scores of conflicting supernatural worlds that people have created out of their imaginations."
In the matter of the plates, we're not talking about some vague "supernatural [sic] world." We're talking about inscribed metal plates weighing between forty and sixty pounds.
Your dogmatic ideology forbids you to acknowledge their existence. But that's your problem, not ours. The evidence is clear. You simply refuse to look at it.
"The one who gives an answer before he listens—this is foolishness and disgrace for him." (Proverbs 18:13, Holman Christian Standard Bible)
gemli DanielPeterson2 years ago The fact that the plates don't exist prevents me from acknowledging their existence. All that exists is a story, attested to by people who had a stake in its telling.
Are all theological claims real, even the ones that contradict other ones?
Has any visitation by a spirit being left a shred of evidence that can be examined?
Would you be comfortable buying a gold mine claim from Joseph Smith?DanielPeterson Mod gemli2 years ago gemli: "The fact that the plates don't exist . . ."
. . . hasn't been demonstrated and seems to contradict an abundance of evidence.
The fact that you're deliberately ignorant, however, has been conclusively demonstrated.
gemli DanielPeterson2 years ago The claims of a handful of people who were susceptible to superstitious belief do not constitute and "abundance of evidence."
There are many distinguished, intelligent and accomplished scientists who are as deliberately ignorant as I am. I'm glad to be in their company.
DanielPeterson Mod gemli2 years ago edited gemli: "The claims of a handful of people who were susceptible to superstitious belief do not constitute and "abundance of evidence.""
You're too uninformed to have a valid opinion on this topic, gemli. You should stop embarrassing yourself.
"Spouting off before listening to the facts is both shameful and foolish." (Proverbs 18:13, New Living Translation)
gemli: "There are many distinguished, intelligent and accomplished scientists who are as deliberately ignorant as I am. I'm glad to be in their company."
Your deliberate refusal to know what you're talking about doesn't place you in their company. If they were as resolutely ignorant as you are on the subjects that they address, they would be neither distinguished nor accomplished nor, for that matter, scientists.
gemli DanielPeterson2 years ago There are many distinguished scientists who think religions are bunk. A smaller but significant percentage are devout believers. That fact would indicate that intelligence is not what distinguishes theists from atheists. It's a question of psychological predisposition, because there is no tangible, examinable or convincing evidence of any theistic claim.
DanielPeterson Mod gemli2 years ago gemli: "It's a question of psychological predisposition"
More obviously true words were never uttered.
DanielPeterson Mod gemli2 years ago gemli: "I don't doubt that eight men lifted something heavy."
Their consistent testimony, and that of others, goes beyond merely lifting something heavy -- as you could easily know, if you were willing to know something.
"What a shame—yes, how stupid!—to decide before knowing the facts!" (Proverbs 18:13, Living Bible)
gemli Guest2 years ago Your repeating a story, not presenting evidence for it that comports with reality. I know what you believe. What I don't understand is why you, or anyone, would believe it.
DanielPeterson Mod gemli2 years ago gemli: "Your repeating a story, not presenting evidence for it that comports with reality. "
You haven't looked at the evidence.
gemli: "I know what you believe. What I don't understand is why you, or anyone, would believe it."
There's no secret about why we believe it. You refuse to look.
You've embarrassed yourself here very badly with this performance.
gemli Guest2 years ago Testimony is a story. It can be true, false or mistaken.
I wonder what sort of scientific skepticism people from the early 1800's might bring to a miracle story presented by a charismatic charlatan who was known to commit various frauds?
gemli Guest2 years ago edited Smith was arrested dozens of times, so no, he was not an honorable character. To think farmers born in the 1700's were rational and skeptical about the supernatural is stretching things to the breaking point. Only a few related family members claim to have seen the "plates," and they were certainly not random strangers, being comprised almost entirely of Smiths and Whitmers.
I've got no motive to "lie." I'm not in the thrall of this or that faith. I want to know what is true, and every religious story makes hash of reality. This is something up with which I will not put. I don't need to be defensive or snarky. I only need to point out that the scores of theologies are not based on real events, but on the credulous nature of human beings.
Kiwi57 gemli2 years ago Smith was arrested dozens of times, so no, he was not an honorable character.
Actually the evidence of Joseph Smith's honourable character is far greater than any evidence there might be for yours. Put another way: Joseph was a better man than you. And if all the spiteful gossip you choose to believe because it fits your ideology was true, he'd still be a better man than you.
gemli Kiwi572 years ago Smith was a scam artist with enormous chutzpah and imagination. Given his legal history, he sure knew how to hook the rubes and reel them in. You've got to admire the guy.
And by the way, I can get you a great deal on dowsing rods, slightly used and completely dry.
No comments:
Post a Comment