From: wcsa@cbnews.cb.att.com (Willard C. Smith)
Subject: Re: Anthony Rose - Please respond
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Indian Hill South
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:34:25 GMT

In article <62b002x92anp01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> agr00@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com (Anthony G Rose) writes:

>I think that it is really interesting.  You were saying that this was not
>a prophecy about the coming of our Lord and using this tactic to remove
>any validity of what I was saying.  Then when I showed you another source
>where Joseph was clearly perdicting the same thing at the same time, you
>ignored that factual evidence that stressed my original point, and went
>once again to character assination. 

The April 6, 1843 sermon was delivered approximately two weeks after
Miller predicted the Second Coming of Christ in 1845. If you had read,
among other things, the _Words of Joseph Smith_ in which the notes for
this sermon were reproduced, you might have stumbled across that in the
footnotes. Therefore Joseph Smith's comment, "Were I to prophecy, I
would say the end would not come in 1844, 5, or 6 or in 40 years"
becomes significant. He is in fact providing a "negative prophecy," if
you wish, in which he is stating that Miller is wrong and that Christ
will *not* come within the next 40 years.

Joseph Smith states why he belives this. He describes the voice and then
states: "I was left to draw my own conclusion concerning this; and I
took the liberty to conclude that if I did live to that time, He would
make His appearance. But I do not say whether He will make his
appearance or I shall go where He is." To ANY Mormon, this is very
significant. He is describing his experience, and HIS OWN CONCLUSIONS. 

>                                     Why didn't you comment on the other
>evidence I presented instead of attacking my character?

Mr Rose, the second statement. Was it couched in "thus sayeth the Lord?"
Did Joseph Smith invoke God's authority? No Joseph Smith expressed his
own opinion, and his opinion was that Christ would come much later then
1840.

But more to the point, Mr Rose. You were asked if you had "doctored up"
a passage. You did not apologize for it. You attempted to excuse your
behavior. If Joseph Smith had done that you wouldn't have hesitated an
instant to call him a lier and hypocrite. 

>                                                         Why is it
>everything I bring up evidence that you cannot answer, you set off you
>missles on my personal character?

Mr Rose, the reason any discussion with you is pointless is that you are
applying YOUR standard of how to interpret the statements of Joseph
Smith. If that means "doctoring up" a document so that Mormons cannot
adequately respond to your accusation, then it means that you cannot be
trusted.

You stated that you edited the section because you didn't want to type
in the entire page. RIGHT! Two very significant sentences make up an
entire page.  Are you trying to tell me that you didn't recognize
the effect of thoese two removed sentences on your entire argument?  
YES, your behavior does reflect on your character. YES, future
discussions with you ARE pointless.

Good-bye
-- 

              Willard C. Smith
  Oh God, Make my Words Palatable and Sweet, | att!cbnews!iwtgo!wcsa
   Because I Might have to Eat all of Them.  | wcsa@iwtgo.att.com
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc