Joseph Smith’s Murder: Do facts lead to truth?

[Anonymous]

Ray & Mormonheretic,

It’s ironic that you both seem to make the “point” of this subject for me.

The use of Perry Mason was to help suspend what you already “know” by getting you to consider another point of view. I’m not warranting that the scenario is correct. I’m trying to get you to think- and more importantly talk, or discuss a topic without reverting so quickly to dogmatism: to what you already “know.”

Instead I get Ray telling me that use of a third voice doesn’t fit the tenor of this forum (while he goes back and forth with his Administrator hat, and personal hat all the time). What’s wrong with me wearing a Perry Mason suit in a post?

I get Heretic thinking that I’m trying to “expose” a cover-up, and perhaps accusing me of some creative writing vanity.

If you would go back to the origin of this post, I stated that the information that I was bringing up wasn’t as important to me as how I hadn’t considered the information in any other light than what I’d been told- or provided by the Church. Then I said:

Quote:

I think that the Church discourages “forensic” thinking, much to it’s benefit, but sadly to the individuals’ detriment.

I think that this is what drives many members to a site like this. Individuals thinking for themselves, hoping for forensic fellowship.

I am sorry if you don’t want to field questions, observations and arguments that don’t quickly adhere to what you already “know.” But, that is the exercise that I had hoped to pursue.

(By the way, Ray. You make me picture the Pharisees following Jesus around saying “the use of metaphors doesn’t really fit the tone of what we like to hear in Jerusalem, please cut that out.”)

Heretic, please don’t be offended if I try my hand at a bit of humor. I have a Jewish friend who has all kinds of self-deprecating Jewish jokes, so I came up with this Mormon joke:

You’ve got two tables. You’ve got a religious riddle written down and placed on those tables and the challenge is to see who can solve the puzzle the quickest. At one table you invite two Rabbis at the other you have a Mormon Bishopric.

Right off the bat the Mormons are at a two to one disadvantage.

My question to you, why do you so quickly want to think together and oppose forensic, critical thinking. Why the quick paddling to a safe harbor?

I’m afraid you discourage some of us from steering our boats to close to you. It might appear that we’re becoming ships passing in the night. And that’s Okay.

[Anonymous]

The last comment was one of the most inaccurate, condescending, condemning comments this forum has ever seen. It also displays a total lack of understanding about the purpose of this site. It says, in essence, nothing more than:

“I am open-minded; you are not.”

Based on the author’s own words, that appears to be the entire point of the post. Therefore, I am locking this thread.

[Author]

Posts