sanctuaryave Posted February 12, 2004 Author Report Posted February 12, 2004 Originally posted by srm+Feb 12 2004, 10:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (srm @ Feb 12 2004, 10:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -sanctuaryave@Feb 11 2004, 09:43 PM <!--QuoteBegin--srm@Feb 11 2004, 11:54 AM sanctuaryave, you said...I know he was found guilty in Ohio regarding the anti-bank matter and left town while it was under appeal.Please show me where he was found guilty? While you're at it can you tell me about Oliver Granger? One of the original Three Witnesses, David Whitmer, joined with other prominent church leaders in renouncing Joseph Smith as a fallen prophet over the anti-bank debacle.On the night of January 12, 1838, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon fled on horseback from Kirtland to the shelter of the Missouri Saints in Nauvoo. Smith later claimed that he left "to escape mob violence, which was about to burst upon us under the color of legal process to cover the hellish designs of our enemies."In reality, Smith had left behind $100,000 in debts. Also, the Ohio legislature had charged him with operating an unchartered bank and ultimately fined him $1,000 in absentia. (Unfortunately for the state of Ohio, they had to get in line with dozens of investors who had already brought suit against him.)Once in Nauvoo, Smith declared bankruptcy after transferring lots of his assets to his wives, children, friends, and associates -- altogether totaling 105 people. (In 1844, these transfers were declared fraudulent and illegal.)Can be found at http://www.algonet.se/~daba/lds/abanking.htmReagrding Oliver Granger:Oliver Granger was the financial agent for the Church who was asked to settle the affairs of the Church in Kirtland, Ohio, after the Saints left that area. His name is included in the Doctrine and Covenants in section 117:12 . Thank you. I few questions.1. I coldn't find any sources on the website. Do you have any?2. does a fine mean that a person was found guilty?3. Can the legislative branch try someone and find them guilty or innocent?any lawyers? pato? There's also this thast bat posted on another thread..24 Oct. (1837) An appeals court confirms the conviction and $1000 fine each of Smith and Rigdon for operating an illegal bank. (The Mormon Hierarchy Origins of Power by D. Michael Quinn, page 627)12 Jan. (1838) Smith and Rigdon flee Kirtland to escape law suits. Before leaving, the prophet dictates a revelation "concerning the trying of the First Presidency" which requires three unimpeachable witnesses and ratification of the decision by a majority of the church's stakes. (ibid)I dont much agree with his tactics but here is some info he provided. Quote
Snow Posted February 12, 2004 Report Posted February 12, 2004 Sanctuary, Well Quinn is a much better source - a real historian. His interpretation is a bit skewed but so is everybody's. Folllowing up from yesterday: You come across as having an agenda, that you already know the answers and ask and then pretend to be surprized when someone answers (Now you're scarring me). I can't hear your tone or watch your expressions but we have all seen this type of act dozens and dozens of times here at LDStalk. I am more suspicious than most but two others thought the same thing about you. You seem passive agressive. You certainly have an agenda though I may have overstated it. Either way, something hidden lies in your posts. You can handle this stuff anyway you want, there is no right or wrong but when I know what's coming, I am bound to let others know that, for me, the gig is up. I am not terribly polite in the process. Nothing personal. I am sure you are a good citizen. It the schtick that I don't care for. One way is the direct approach. Ex: "I heard this about LDS doctrince.... Is that correct?" or "I am so and so and believe this, however, I am not totally decided. Would anyone like to discuss/debate it?" Or even the agressive approach: Confront us right off the bat and see if anyone what to go toe to toe with you. Personally I think you are way wrong on most of what you are saying but that doesn't bother me so much, it is the seemingly hidden agenda that piques my interest and hence my obnoxiousness. Regards and happy posting. Quote
Guest Starsky Posted February 13, 2004 Report Posted February 13, 2004 hasn't all this been said again and again? Quote
Paul Osborne Posted February 13, 2004 Report Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by curvette+Feb 12 2004, 09:02 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 12 2004, 09:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Paul Osborne@Feb 11 2004, 10:19 PM prove it. Prove what? Read Genesis. Then read President Hinkley's comments. It proves itself. your confused.Paul O Quote
sanctuaryave Posted February 13, 2004 Author Report Posted February 13, 2004 Snow.. I don't know how I can convince you that my questions are genuine, my intentions, though understandably suspect, are pure, and my desire to learn the truth is honest. I have apologized for the way I started out since that seemed to be a problem for you and apparently others and even the apology was recieved and dismissed as someone with an agenda. I appreciate your feedback and will attempt to ask questions that draw less fire in the future. I would be interested in knowing specifically what I am wrong about. Could you expand? Quote
Cal Posted February 13, 2004 Report Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by Paul Osborne+Feb 10 2004, 06:50 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Paul Osborne @ Feb 10 2004, 06:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Feb 8 2004, 09:08 AM Since all the galaxies are moving away from eachother, and the universe contains an "echo" of electromagnetic radiation that clearly indicates that around 13 billion years ago, the universe had no planets, stars nor galaxies, but was simply an expanding ball of high temperature elementary particles, what was God doing then? Which "planet" was he on and where was Kolob then? Cal,This is pure theory based on what man thinks he understands based on how he measures and interprets data available today.Where were you 50 billion years ago?Paul O Paul--and where is your data to the contrary?By the way, I don't have to be inside a room when a firecraker goes off to be able to infer that it did. If I walk into a room a few moments after a firecracker goes off in a room and hear a strong reverberation along with bits of paper flying in all directions away from a central point, it isn't hard to infer that an explosion just took place. Read up a little on the subject, you may change your mind.The universe looks just like a firecracker going off---galaxies spreading out from eachother, a distinct electromagnetic echo, and the fastest moving galaxies happen to be the furthest away. Incidentally, the frequency of the electromagnetic echo was predicted by Einstein 40 years before the "echo" was found, and the frequency turned out to be EXACTLY what Einstein had predicted for an expanding universe. Yes, there are no absolutes in science, but the evidence so far points strongly in the direction of a very old universe, and NONE of it points to a young one.But, inspite of the evidence, you will continue to believe the universe is in some sort of steady state, just the way God created it, and the scientists are all wrong. Believe what you like---I like Science. You see my God doesn't contradict the obvious. Quote
Guest curvette Posted February 13, 2004 Report Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by Paul Osborne@Feb 12 2004, 08:43 PM your confused. Oh yeah? Well you're ugly. Confused is only temporary but ugly lasts forever! Quote
Guest Starsky Posted February 13, 2004 Report Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by curvette+Feb 12 2004, 11:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 12 2004, 11:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Paul Osborne@Feb 12 2004, 08:43 PM your confused. Oh yeah? Well you're ugly. Confused is only temporary but ugly lasts forever! LOL...watch out...you maybe asked for proof! Quote
Guest Posted February 13, 2004 Report Posted February 13, 2004 I was looking at a website (not anti-mormon, checked into that!) Anyways.. this is for those whom are seeking, or newly converted, etc... 1rst off the main LDS website is mormon link ormormon . ,but the conversion one, will have a page on the left side,& you can go to were it says links(also thease are there too) there it Jeff Lindseys FAQ's. He answers thease better then I can. LDSThat helped me out. Quote
Guest Starsky Posted February 13, 2004 Report Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by sistercandice@Feb 13 2004, 10:35 AM I was looking at a website (not anti-mormon, checked into that!) Anyways.. this is for those whom are seeking, or newly converted, etc... 1rst off the main LDS website is mormon link ormormon . ,but the conversion one, will have a page on the left side,& you can go to were it says links(also thease are there too) there it Jeff Lindseys FAQ's. He answers thease better then I can. LDSThat helped me out. Cool, Sister Candace. Quote
Guest curvette Posted February 13, 2004 Report Posted February 13, 2004 Originally posted by Peace+Feb 13 2004, 09:49 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Peace @ Feb 13 2004, 09:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> Originally posted by -curvette@Feb 12 2004, 11:42 PM <!--QuoteBegin--Paul Osborne@Feb 12 2004, 08:43 PM your confused. Oh yeah? Well you're ugly. Confused is only temporary but ugly lasts forever! LOL...watch out...you maybe asked for proof! Well, if he looks anything like his avatar... :) Quote
Paul Osborne Posted February 14, 2004 Report Posted February 14, 2004 Originally posted by curvette+Feb 12 2004, 09:02 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 12 2004, 09:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Paul Osborne@Feb 11 2004, 10:19 PM prove it. Prove what? Read Genesis. Then read President Hinkley's comments. It proves itself. Post them and I'll read them. You’re the one who made the accusation, yet you provide no source.Paul O Quote
Paul Osborne Posted February 14, 2004 Report Posted February 14, 2004 Originally posted by curvette+Feb 12 2004, 11:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 12 2004, 11:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Paul Osborne@Feb 12 2004, 08:43 PM your confused. Oh yeah? Well you're ugly. Confused is only temporary but ugly lasts forever! Oh, you're just a confused woman. Men are smarter than woman and more superior too. Paul O Quote
Guest curvette Posted February 14, 2004 Report Posted February 14, 2004 Originally posted by Paul Osborne@Feb 13 2004, 06:13 PM Men are smarter than woman and more superior too. Paul O MORE superior? Is that like "more better?" (not an English major were you?) Quote
Paul Osborne Posted February 15, 2004 Report Posted February 15, 2004 Originally posted by curvette+Feb 13 2004, 07:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 13 2004, 07:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Paul Osborne@Feb 13 2004, 06:13 PM Men are smarter than woman and more superior too. Paul O MORE superior? Is that like "more better?" (not an English major were you?) It's my way of saying, "extra". Also, we are the stronger vessel too. Paul O Quote
Paul Osborne Posted February 15, 2004 Report Posted February 15, 2004 Originally posted by curvette+Feb 12 2004, 09:02 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Feb 12 2004, 09:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Paul Osborne@Feb 11 2004, 10:19 PM prove it. Prove what? Read Genesis. Then read President Hinkley's comments. It proves itself. curvette,Your antecedent was a plural noun (comments), yet your choice of pronoun was singular (It). Watch your agreement there! Paul O Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.