Blaine wrote: > ... as DaveH said, who wants to provide DaveM > an opportunity to bash the Mormon scriptures? > That is all he wants to do, as my experience with > him has proven several times over. > Yesterday, I got a post from a person named Perry. > His discusssion of the doctrine of the Trinity was > objective. I do not find this objectivity with DavidM, > in all due respect to him otherwise. I have told him > before that I consider much of what he writes as > stemming from his biases.
Blaine, if you had been on this list years earlier, you would have seen far less opinionated responses from me. Within the last year especially, my opinions have matured regarding Mormonism because I have been doing my homework. Before Dave Hansen came on the list, which must have been about four years ago, if you had mentioned to me names like Cowdery or Rigdon or Harris or Whitmer, I would have politely asked you to inform me about these men. I didn't have much of a clue about them. Now I have read hours and hours of material from journals and books so that I feel I have a pretty good understanding there. Before I knew the name Joseph Smith, but I didn't his brother's name was Hyrum or that they had died together, nor even that Joseph Smith's wife's name was Emma, nor that his wife and son did not go with the mainstream Mormon church when Joseph Smith died. I didn't know that Joseph Smith's mother wrote a history of Joseph Smith, and I didn't know about Smith's own 7 volume history. I did not know the name B.H. Roberts either. Now these names have instant recognition in my mind and I have a good acquaintance with a lot of history associated with them. Having read all the materials that you guys have so graciously directed me toward, I can't help but form opinions. I'm sorry if my opinion doesn't go along with your opinion, but quite frankly, by now I feel like perhaps I might know more about Mormonism than you do. I'm not saying that I do, but I do find that I constantly bring up information that you don't seem to have much knowledge about. Maybe there is just so much information out there that few people can retain it all in their heads. Maybe it is because you selectively exclude some information from your studies. Whatever the reason, you ought to at least be able to understand that having a contrary opinion is not the same thing as bias. I came into this with an open mind, even being accused by others, such as Gary, of being a Mormon myself or inclined toward Mormonism or having a Mormon bias. Many have written me saying they didn't know this was a Mormon list when they joined, others have complained about too much unchallenged speech by the Mormons on this list. Now, having considered all the information at my disposal, I have formed a rather strong opinion that Joseph Smith was a con man. There are court records showing him being convicted of such just a few years before all this Book of Mormon stuff, of him fleeing jail time for that conviction and starting the Church of Christ which became the LDS & more than 100 other sects within a generation. I had problems with a man shooting and killing other men with a gun smuggled to him in jail, but obviously there are ways of explaining or excusing a man trying to protect himself from a deadly mob. I had problems with the fact that when he left communities, there were allegations of bank fraud and other money problems helping motivate the move that were always glossed over in Smith's history. The real nail in the coffin for me regarding his con artistry was this Book of Abraham material. When I fully examined all of this, that was it. I am convinced Joseph Smith was a con man his entire life. I only wish you could understand how scholars with differing opinions can disagree and discuss a subject objectively without copping out of the discussion with the complaint that the other person is biased so it doesn't do any good to discuss the subject with him. Having an opinion is not the same thing as being unduly biased. I still try my best to be objective with all the evidence presented to me, and the very fact that I try my best to be unbiased is the reason that I pressure you and DaveH to discuss this Book of Abraham material. I want to hear if there is any pebble of knowledge somewhere that would explain this smoking gun. There is always that possibility. You know, twenty people witness a murder and they pick the murderer out of a line-up. Most would easily convict the person on such evidence, but when you point out that the murderer has an identical twin brother living in the same town, suddenly the evidence doesn't look so compelling. Conclusions are often toppled with just one piece of evidence like that, so I'm looking for it the best I can. I'm sorry you don't want to help me find the explanation that would justify Joseph Smith in the Book of Abraham situation. It's not going to stop me from continuing to look, nor will it stop me from forming conclusions based upon the evidence that I have before me. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida USA ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
