Posted on 07/04/2013 8:54:37 AM PDT by Colofornian
//I am still waiting for anything to remotely support the “daily reference” assertion. Crickets chirping on that one?//
Not at all. Mormons DO nearly daily reference Woodruff which is what Colo claimed.
//Also, when in history have devoted followers of God and their beliefs been considered “normal” by the prevailing religious “orthodoxy” of the world in their day?//
Seriously? Proof you have no clue about Christian history.
Obviously I must have touched a raw nerve there somewhere.
SLC is building a new one in Carmel, Indiana - a few miles from me. It will be located between two golf courses, in one of the richest communities in Indiana.
I plan to 'visit' during it's Open House.
After the opening ceremonies are over; they WILL be holding a Cleansing ceremony; to rid the building, no doubt, of the "weird, false empty" spirits that were brought in by so many UNWORTHY visitors.
JS got some "weird, false empty feeling"s from HIS experiences in MormonISM!
No...
Still; separated brethren.
--MormonDude(You know we'll STILL take YOU back. Just LOOK at our history of how many witnesses were EXCOMMUNICATED; and JS restored THEM to positions of power; so SURELY headquarters would do the same for a mere fly-in-the-ointment like YOU!)
I’ll bet when Binger sits down; his lap almost disappears!
Indeed!
And, if I were you; I'd get that tooth taken care of!
But; to be effective, a BROOMSTICK must be used to do the 'touching'...
Miss Eliza R. Snow was one of the first (willing) victims of Joseph in Nauvoo. She used to be much at the prophet’s house he made her one of his celestial brides... . Feeling outraged as a wife and betrayed as a friend, Emma is currently reported as having had recourse to a vulgar broomstick as an instrument of revenge: and the harsh treatment received at Emma’s hands is said to have destroyed Eliza’s hopes of becoming the mother of a prophet’s son (Dr. W. Wyl, Mormon Portraits, 1886, pp.57-58).
The Mormon writer Claire Noall acknowledged: “Willard realized that Emma had refused to believe that any of the young women boarding at the Mansion when it was first used as a hotel had been married to Joseph. She had struck Eliza Snow at the head of the stairs, and Eliza, it was whispered, had lost her unborn child” (Intimate Disciple, a Portrait of Willard Richards, 1957, p.407).
Sometime during February of 1843 Emma evidently became aware that Joseph had taken her best friend, Eliza R. Snow, as a plural wife. Eliza was currently living in the Smith home, which housed a number of boarders. LDS historians Linda Newell and Valeen Avery wrote:
When the full realization of the relationship between her friend Eliza and her husband Joseph came to her, Emma was stunned. . . . Although no contemporary account of the incident between Emma and Eliza remains extant, evidence leads to the conclusion that some sort of physical confrontation occurred between the two women. In 1886 Wilhelm Wyl published the first known version of the incident in his book, Joseph Smith the Prophet: His Family and His Friends:
They say . . . there is scarcely a Mormon unacquainted with the fact that Sister Emma . . . soon found out the little compromise arranged between Joseph and Eliza. Feeling outraged as a wife and betrayed as a friend, Emma is currently reported as having had recourse to a vulgar broomstick as an instrument of revenge; and the harsh treatment received at Emma’s hands is said to have destroyed Eliza’s hopes of becoming the mother of a prophet’s son...
Another story, attributed to LeRoi C. Snow, Eliza’s nephew, is an oral family tradition that tells of Emma knocking Eliza down the stairs with a broom, the fall resulting in a miscarriage for Eliza. . . .
Whether Eliza fell down the stairs or whether Emma pushed her or pulled her down by the hair, or whether Emma only turned her out of the house, the result seems to be documented in Eliza’s terse journal entry for February 11, 1843:
‘Took board and had my lodging removed to the residence of br. [Jonathan] Holmes.’
Eliza did not make another entry in her journal for five weeks and wrote no explanation for either the gap in her diary or her abrupt departure from Emma’s home. . . .
Several acquaintances of Eliza spoke of Emma discovering Eliza’s relationship with Joseph, leading to her departure.
The incident between Emma and Eliza forced the issue of plural marriage into the open. Emma could no longer believe that Joseph was not involved, and he could no longer deny it. Emma had not acted with violence before; now her determined opposition might show up again with unexpected force. Joseph resolutely tried to bring Emma around (Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, by Linda King Newell and Valeen Tippetts Avery, 1994, pp. 134-137).
http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no106.htm
Well, okay, I'll allow it. The important thing is the application of fire to meat.
Obviously, telling someone they are obsessed with fault finding is itself some of that fault finding which is complained about. Then there was this;
But here ye be! Whatsamatta? The effort to cap off the fault-finding in others, laying it down like it would be the 'last word' having rather failed, leads to the breaking of one's word so that upon return some fault can again be pointed towards? Doubling down on it, with a little extra word-breaking on the side?
Such an impressive display...of what exactly I'm either not entirely certain --- or am forbidden to say.
We've all seen the performance before. There are many volunteer actors, taking it upon themselves to opine, seem to ad lib similar lines, with similar lack of self awareness during the presentation. Curious that...the "rules" must apply...to...those people...over there!
Not this little black duck.
Have you noticed that we have NEVER gotten a MORMON to comment on the MEAT prohibition in these threads?
Well, wouldn't it break their long standing prohibition on actually following their own rules?
I did not go back to the thread, but in looking at my Freeper Mail, your post jumped up at me. And no, I won’t read your lengthy pasted nonsense. Bye.
Correction: I went to “posts”...not mail. Whatever.
And you were present on this thread. You came back after indicating would "not be looking back at this string". Perhaps you meant something else by that?
But this freepmail accusation thing. Check again. Perhaps I am being mistaken for someone else? That sort of thing can happen I suppose.
I just went to my own "mail" page and double-checked, looking at the "sent" box...and don't see a thing addressed to "JustTheTruth". I'm sure an admin moderator could confirm that I have not sent a thing to you by way of what we call around here, "freepmail".
Please re-check your own, then come back and offer some adjustment to your comments. Perhaps you are mistaking "posts to you" for "mail". Those are two separate functions.
As for "lengthy pasted(?)nonsense...what in the world are you referring to? I can craft some long replies, that is true. But what I submitted here as reply to your own comments, was as short as it was less than sweet.
There was no "pasting" of anything in what I sent as comment. But just wow ---the "technique" displayed in your own reply is stunning.
I must have hit a nerve?
A Mormon being duplicitous. Say it ain’t so...
So since you were not going to look at this thread again I take you have you eyes closed?
Its a rhetorical question, closed eyes is the only way a honest person can be a Mormon...
I made a mistake. I said there was no "pasting", when in fact there was. Two comments of your own included, which I copied from your own comments "here on this string", and "pasted" in comment addressed to you. So...I wasn't completely precise in my previous comment.
It's probably good that your mind is firmly fixed onto what you believe.
Saves you a LOT of time that would be wasted thinking.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.