Kevin

I don't know. I just got back from vacation two days ago and didn't look at the board but once while I was gone. He's been real good Kevin .....he's been on his "batst" behavior That sounds like a combination of "best" and "worst". Please don't ban me again, I don't want to talk to that bag of hot air/donuts Dan Peterson anymore. He's a big mean bully, and I don't like him. Can we ban him? BTW, he's only all mighty and huffy when he has fellow internet mormons moderating the board that condone his personal attacks, but censor those that do the same that don't share their agenda. It's okay to make personal attacks, as long as they are directed at people that aren't mormons. Good grief. I hate that guy. I happen to be a LFoDCP.

I don't know. I just got back from vacation two days ago and didn't look at the board but once while I was gone.

I believe you. Perhaps I'll see you over there although I don't post there anymore.

Yep, you were pretty close. I'm usually pretty good on this board though, don't you think? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Recently I've been wondering if you weren't trying to get yourself banned for some reason.

The post wasn't deleted for speaking about only Dunn. It also spoke about Neal Maxwell inappropriately.

Bat, whatever headaches you give the moderators around here you are funny! You gotta admit, I was pretty close on the Peterson/Englund thing.

Sounds like Bat just got clobbered in another debate with Peterson or England (or maybe both) and isn't too pleased about it.

See it. Its a great movie.

Nope, it was a general criticism, not directed at you. Ok, but have you ever seen anybody on this board post referring to FARMS or Jeff Lindsay? If so, how often have you seen such? Even so, does the fact that one might utilize research of others in arriving at their opinions in and of itself automatically invalidate those opinions? Do you find specifically or generally that the information pubished by Farms or found on Jeff's site is unreliable or deceitful?

What about "Well, FARMS says it's wrong!" That's a valid refutation, isn't it? How about linking to a Jeff Lindsay webpage? Does that count? Bat, do you recall ever seeing me post referring to FARMS or Jeff Lindsay? Ever? Matt, I'm stalling. Shhh. Don't tell Maureen.

Kevin - Are you stalling? :) M. No.

The thing with Bat is that he knows exactly what he is doing - he knows when he's posting something that will offend. I can just imagine bat sitting back after some of his posts saying "I wonder how long it will take for that post to get deleted." I'd be very surprised if that hasn't happened.

By all means, google away. And what's wrong with Mormonism Unveiled? M. You don't know? Really?

Who needs credible evidence when it is just confirming what you already know to be true? Ahh, a mind reader.

Gary Gilmore: In October of the same year Gilmore was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. Offered a choice as to the mode of execution, he opted to be shot. Both victims had been Mormon, and, in the opinion of his brother Mikal, Gary exercised his choice in knowing fulfillment of the Mormon doctrine of Blood Atonement. 1 Notes and References 1. Norman Mailer, The Executioner's Song, 1979 http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/...97/petch.html#1 Rosmos Anderson: <span style='color:blue'>THE STORY OF THE MORMONS - FROM THE DATE OF THEIR ORIGIN TO THE YEAR 1901 by William Alexander Linn CHAPTER IX. BLOOD ATONEMENT: John D. Lee, who says that this doctrine was "justified by all the people," gives full particulars of another instance. Among the Danish converts in Utah was Rosmos Anderson, whose wife had been a widow with a grown daughter. Anderson desired to marry his step-daughter also, and she was quite willing; but a member of the Bishop's council wanted the girl for his wife, and he was influential enough to prevent Anderson from getting the necessary consent from the head of the church. Knowing the professed horror of the church toward the crime of adultery, Anderson and the young woman, at one of the meetings during the "Reformation," confessed their guilt of that crime, thinking that in this way they would secure permission to marry. But, while they were admitted to rebaptism on their confession, the coveted permit was not issued and they were notified that to offend would be to incur death. Such a charge was very soon laid against Anderson (not against the girl), and the same council, without hearing him, decided that he must die. Anderson was so firm in the Mormon faith that he made no remonstrance, simply asking half a day for preparation. His wife provided clean clothes for the sacrifice, and his executioners dug his grave. At midnight they called for him, and, taking him to the place, allowed him to kneel by the grave and pray. Then they cut his throat, "and held him so that his blood ran into the grave." His wife, obeying instructions, announced that he had gone to California.* *"Mormonism Unveiled," p. 282 http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/Mormons/00000075.htm M. Perhaps I wasn't clear in my request. I can google mormonism unveiled anytime. My question should have been, what credible evidence do you have that blood atonement was practiced. Unsourced quotes in Mormonism Unveiled don't quite do it for me.

Maureen, You posted the names of two people claiming that they did indeed participate in blood atonement. I'm curious as to what evidence you have that they did particpate. I know of no evidence and have never heard that there was any.

ROFLOL!!!! Yeah, right. He ain't going anywhere.

LOL!! Right, it was the previous post. I'm human. Maureen, I don't believe that these marriages were any different from the sealings that took place where men were sealed to other men for the purpose of establishing a priesthood link. I don't believe that JS did practice plural marriage with other men's wives. I believe that the sealings were for the purpose I stated above. I've seen no compelling evidence that would indicate that Joseph practiced plural marriage with anyone other than those who single prior to actually marrying him. And, such evidence certainly hasn't been presented here by those who make the claims.

Fine. Yo obviously can leave for whatever reason you want. However, you've made claims that joseph was an adulterer etc. with absolutely no evidence. If you based your decision, even if only in part, on no evidence, then that appears to be anything but reasonable to me. Who is you guys? Exactly where did sling any dirt? I neither said nor implied anything of the sort. My understanding is that the sealings were not marriages in the sense that they were legal marriages based upon the laws of the land. These women were sealed to Joseph in much the same way that a son or daughter might might be sealed to a parent. Evidence that he had no marital relations with any of the children? Sure. How about the fact that there are no known offspring? Might that be considered evidence? I think so.

So all that he did is OK with you, Ray? That's fine if that is the case, but I'd appreciate if you didn't imply that I don't understand it b/c I don't have some 'light' that you happen to have. Perhaps I could say the same about you not having the 'light' that I DO possess. Not that I AM saying that, but perhaps I could... Shantress, You know what is not ok with me? When people such as yourself come on this board and make accusations against Joseph Smith with absolutely ZERO support for such a claim. You've done so in this very thread. You have no evidence to support your claim or at least you've not presented such. You talk about Joseph Smith Marrying other people's wives. Are you even aware that at that time it was common practice for people to be sealed to various leaders of the church? The sealing power had just been restored and so people felt it necessary to be sealed to those they felt would remain faithful. Did you even consider this or that that might account for Joseph being sealed othem men's wives? If you chose to leave the church based on the paucity of information you've presented so far then I wonder what depths you go to to make other important decisions.

Matt, you don't really know what you're talking about here do you? Do you actually know that the people allegedly blowing up LDS chapels are doing so thinking that they are following Brigham Young's teachings?

99.9%??!!! Wow, I can't wait to see the research you have done supporting this statement!! Please share.

Look up. You'll see the following: I think that statement covers it well enough. If you require specificity then just refer to Spencer's recent addition.

Maureen, I've said only that which is contained in the LDSTalk code of conduct or whatever you want to call it. Its been pinned at the top of each forum for quite some time.

I didn't say that all principles have to be lived. Obviously, baptism isn't going to happen until one believes. One principle that clearly must be lived is that of faith - faith that God will answer your prayer(s) concerning the Book of Mormon. You exercise this faith by actually praying and studying the Book of Mormon and trying to live the principles that you understand. Some, I believe, have significant trials of their faith in this regard. I don't pretend to know why. I make no such claims. Neither do I have any data of any sort concerning those who don't receive a divine witness. I don't think that such data could even be collected and represented in any meaningful manner - I think spiritual matters are far too subjective.