Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by froggy, Dec 2, 2009.
Mormonism: Its Origin, Characteristics, and Doctrines
Alright Froggy, I'm going to give you some general tips on determining how credible your sources are:
1) If someone is going to claim a conspiracy existed. It is quite necessarily to demonstrate that the people involved actually knew each other. The idea that Sidney Rigdon started it all with the help of Joseph Smith and Parley P Pratt is completely absurd. They didnt even know each other until after the Book of Mormon was published!
2) your source is making the claim that Joseph was too stupid to pull it off so therefore it had to have been Sidney who did it yet Joseph somehow outmanuvered Sidney and seized control of the "con". I would argue that Joseph cant possibly both be too stupid be the founder of mormonism and at the same time out smart those who supposedly are smart enough to. You cant contradict yourself that blatantly and remain credible
3) Using ad hominen attacks such as attacking their moral character without evidence to back their claims up is generally a sign that they arent credible in their assertions.
4) When people have to quote second and third hand sources for what people said and then in those second and third hand sources use elipses a lot to specifically leave out major portions of the text. They generally arent credible.
5) When people have to paranthetically insert their own commentary in the middle of quotes to get you to interpet said quotes their way, chances are they arent credibly quoting the source. Because quotes can speak for themselves.
6) If someones own reasoning destroys their own position, they tend not to be creidble Example: According to their standards for Apostles, the writer would have to throw out most of the New Testament because Paul was not converted to Christ until years after teh resurrection.
Needless to say, your link is rather shody scholarship. Not really a surprise since its not actually geared to tell the truth but to prevent people from learning the truth about mormons.
Finally, i see no reason why you needed a new thread for this. may as well just merge it with the mormon thread.
1 Actully, they met in 1828. 2 Cons catch on quick. 3.4.5.nothing added to this article. Bottom line joey was a con. Ava, they coned you.
So your saying that Joseph was an uneducated idiot who was a fast learner. And you dont at all see a contradiction there?
They did not meet in 1828. Parley didnt meet Joseph until 1830 after he first came in contact with the Book of Mormon. Sidney didnt come in contact with the Joseph until 1831 when several missionaries stopped by and taught him the Gospel in Ohio.
Your article is some of the shoddiest scholarship Ive ever seen. If you think its somehow honest, then they conned you.
Say you go to work in a new profession, and you don't have a lot of book sense but you have good common sense, after a while wouldn't you be able to do the job. well that was joe, good con-sense. and they did meet in 1828 on one of parleys visit to ohio.
yeah wonder how Joseph did that when he never went to Ohio until 1831.
So you were with him all his life.
So you were with him all his life.[/QUOTE]
No I'm just very familiar with his life.
No I'm just very familiar with his life.[/QUOTE]
did you learn that from the book of mormons.
Of course not. The Book of Mormon is an Ancient document that has been translated into modern English. It has nothing to do with Joseph Smith's history and life other than the fact that he was the translator.
You'd know this if you read it.
Separate names with a comma.