Juliann Makes a Confession

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Juliann Makes a Confession

Post by Mister Scratch »

Holy smokes! I cannot count the number of times that I have heard the apologists over on the fittingly named MADboard claim that no one is ever told to avoid embarrassing Church history, or anti-Mormon accounts of the Church, but, it turns out that this is all a bunch of spin, all a bunch of baloney. What I find so stunning about this is that the admission is coming from none other than juliann!!!:

juliann wrote:It is refreshing to even see some critics begin to admit some responsibility. I was always told to avoid anti-Mormonism in former years...but it has been a very long time since I have even heard it mentioned. I find it almost incomprehensible that Joseph Smith's polygamy is sitting right in one of the most important pieces of scripture for LDS belief yet some people don't know. I didn't know how many sealings (and we still don't, by the way). I'm not exactly sure what is supposed to be taught when no one can come to a conclusion on this board about some pretty fundamental things. It is very clear the purpose of teaching this for the countermos is to paint Joseph Smith as a terrible person because that is what they think polygamy makes a person. The breakdown seems to occur when they can't understand why not everybody thinks it does....and I don't see that being argued in church manuals anytime soon. So what they really want would never be acknowledged anyway and they would find themselves in the same frustrated existence....a burning need to convert us to their way of thinking.

I still find it so bizarre that we get so much tongue clucking over D&C 132 and how awful the flaming sword is ....while another thread is claiming the church hides it. I don't even know how to respond to that.....cognitive dissonance? Compartmentalization? What is going on with the critics when they can take two competing positions and be so completely oblivious while they do it?
(emphasis added)

I vote that we end this silly apologetic effluvium once and for all. Let's all say it together: The Church discourages members from reading the full history!

Edited to add: I cannot help but point out that juliann is one of the most egregiously nasty posters towards those people who appear on MAD in order to express their mixed emotions upon finding out some embarrassing tidbit about the Church. In other words, she, along with her "harpy brigade," tend to deride and victimize these upset posters, and to blame them for not "studying up." How interesting, then, that juliann herself admits that she was given council against reading!

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Re: Juliann Makes a Confession

Post by Runtu »

Mister Scratch wrote:I vote that we end this silly apologetic effluvium once and for all. Let's all say it together: The Church discourages members from reading the full history!

Edited to add: I cannot help but point out that juliann is one of the most egregiously nasty posters towards those people who appear on MAD in order to express their mixed emotions upon finding out some embarrassing tidbit about the Church. In other words, she, along with her "harpy brigade," tend to deride and victimize these upset posters, and to blame them for not "studying up." How interesting, then, that juliann herself admits that she was given council against reading!


Of course the church has always taught its people to avoid critical literature. It was quite a surprise to me to hear so many people on FAIR/MAD deny this. I'm happy to see Juliann state the obvious.

And your observation about how struggling and questioning members are received is spot on. I've met more than a few people who went to FAIR for answers and went away disillusioned after being attacked. I think the problem is that it's hard to distinguish the sincere from the trolls.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22020
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: Juliann Makes a Confession

Post by moksha »

Mister Scratch wrote:
juliann wrote:I still find it so bizarre that we get so much tongue clucking over D&C 132 and how awful the flaming sword is ....while another thread is claiming the church hides it. I don't even know how to respond to that.....cognitive dissonance? Compartmentalization? What is going on with the critics when they can take two competing positions and be so completely oblivious while they do it?

I think Juliann is misunderstanding these two points. The critics are against polygamy and the Church seems to sense the out-of-sync-with-Western-Civilization nature of polygamy and so they do not mention it in their materials. There is no conflict to experience cognitive dissonance over these two items.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
SatanWasSetUp
God
Posts: 1183
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:40 am

Re: Juliann Makes a Confession

Post by SatanWasSetUp »

Apologists deny a lot of things that anyone who has spent any time as an active member of an LDS church knows is true. I think the apologists forget that many critics were once members too. We know what we were taught.

I also find it humorous that Juliann defends polygamy. Does she know how much Gordon B. Hinckley despises polygamy?
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley

"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks

User avatar
dartagnan
God
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:27 am

Post by dartagnan »

Well, to be FAIR, she didn't say we should not get the whole story. She said she was told to stay away from anti-Mormonism. She doesn't believe the whole story can be told through anti-Mormonism. Neither side will give the whole story, to be honest.

But did anyone ever really doubt LDS are encouraged to stay away from such materials?

I know some Mormons who think the presence of an anti-Mormon book in their house, literally hinder's the spirit's presence.

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Post by Runtu »

dartagnan wrote:Well, to be FAIR, she didn't say we should not get the whole story. She said she was told to stay away from anti-Mormonism. She doesn't believe the whole story can be told through anti-Mormonism. Neither side will give the whole story, to be honest.


No, anti-Mormons are not about to tell the whole story, either. But if you look at both sides, you can find the whole story.

But did anyone ever really doubt LDS are encouraged to stay away from such materials?

I know some Mormons who think the presence of an anti-Mormon book in their house, literally hinder's the spirit's presence.


That's why it was so weird to hear people deny that we were told that.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington

User avatar
Jason Bourne
God
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:00 pm

Post by Jason Bourne »

The idea that it is the member who at some point is disturbed at finding something that they feel the Church has not been forthright about is at fault is utter nonsense. The church does not encourage heavy historical research. Before the internet many members did not have access to it. And it is in and of itself contradictory.

Look at it this way:

Disturbed member or ExMo: "I am really angry that I was reading XYZ book and found out the Joseph Smith practiced polyandry. This was quite a shock to me and seems to be out of character with how I was taught about Joseph Smith."

Apologist: "Well you know a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such."

Disturbed member or ExMo: "Well ok, but I though that he was acting as a prophet when it came to plural marriage."

Apologist: "Yes he was. Commanded of God."

Disturbed member or ExMo: "Well I feel like the Church hid this from me. I went to seminary, Institute, all my SS classes and read all the related church manuals. I knew about plural marriage of course, it is in the D&C. But marrying other men's wives? The story of Zina Diantha Hunington Jacobs Young just breaks my heart. I am really upset I had to find this out in XYZ book."

Apologist: Well it is your own fault you know. It was not hidden. You could have found out in a number of different books. Why did you now do your homework.

Disturbed member or ExMo: "Uhhh.... well that is exactly what I did! I did my homework and found this out in a book published by Signature as well as an obscure BYU studies article. So I did my homework and now I am mad that the Church does not at least teach something about it rather then the more faith promoting version. None of the official sources from the LDS Church told me this. I had to do the homework on my own and now I am upset. I guess I did not just do it soon enough"

Apologist: "Well, it is still your fault that you did not do it sooner. "



You see, most of us who are disillusioned to how we were taught about the history found out the more real history when we decided to do our own leg work. But why should only the bright and happy positive side be presented by the Church itself?

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Re: Juliann Makes a Confession

Post by bcspace »

Mr. Scratch,

I don't see how you can logically proceed from Juliann's statement....

I was always told to avoid anti-Mormonism in former years...but it has been a very long time since I have even heard it mentioned.


...to 'full history'. Anti-Mormonism isn't full history. It doesn't follow.

How interesting, then, that juliann herself admits that she was given council against reading!


Counsel against reading what? Full history? Where does she say that? I too have seen the counsel on anti-Mormonism, but I have never been counseled not to read the full history. by the way, I takes my chances and I do indeed read anti-mormon stuff too....;)

User avatar
SatanWasSetUp
God
Posts: 1183
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:40 am

Re: Juliann Makes a Confession

Post by SatanWasSetUp »

bcspace wrote:Mr. Scratch,

I don't see how you can logically proceed from Juliann's statement....

I was always told to avoid anti-Mormonism in former years...but it has been a very long time since I have even heard it mentioned.


...to 'full history'. Anti-Mormonism isn't full history. It doesn't follow.

How interesting, then, that juliann herself admits that she was given council against reading!


Counsel against reading what? Full history? Where does she say that? I too have seen the counsel on anti-Mormonism, but I have never been counseled not to read the full history. by the way, I takes my chances and I do indeed read anti-mormon stuff too....;)


Well it depends on the definition of "anti-mormon stuff". Some people consider anything written about the church which is not praiseworthy to be anti-mormon, no matter how accurate it is. Boyd K. Packer once said that churh historians should only write faith promoting history and edit out non-faith promiting truths. Fawn Brodie's book is considered by some to be anti-mormon garbage written by revelation through satan. Others consider it a fairly accurate portrayal of Joseph Smith. Most LDS I know consider anything that casts the LDS church in a negative light is anti-mormon, no matter how well researched and accurate.
"We of this Church do not rely on any man-made statement concerning the nature of Deity. Our knowledge comes directly from the personal experience of Joseph Smith." - Gordon B. Hinckley

"It's wrong to criticize leaders of the Mormon Church even if the criticism is true." - Dallin H. Oaks

Mister Scratch
Master Mahan
Posts: 5604
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm

Re: Juliann Makes a Confession

Post by Mister Scratch »

SatanWasSetUp wrote:
bcspace wrote:Mr. Scratch,

I don't see how you can logically proceed from Juliann's statement....

I was always told to avoid anti-Mormonism in former years...but it has been a very long time since I have even heard it mentioned.


...to 'full history'. Anti-Mormonism isn't full history. It doesn't follow.

How interesting, then, that juliann herself admits that she was given council against reading!


Counsel against reading what? Full history? Where does she say that? I too have seen the counsel on anti-Mormonism, but I have never been counseled not to read the full history. by the way, I takes my chances and I do indeed read anti-mormon stuff too....;)


Well it depends on the definition of "anti-mormon stuff". Some people consider anything written about the church which is not praiseworthy to be anti-mormon, no matter how accurate it is. Boyd K. Packer once said that churh historians should only write faith promoting history and edit out non-faith promiting truths. Fawn Brodie's book is considered by some to be anti-mormon garbage written by revelation through satan. Others consider it a fairly accurate portrayal of Joseph Smith. Most LDS I know consider anything that casts the LDS church in a negative light is anti-mormon, no matter how well researched and accurate.


You are exactly right, SWSU. My critique of juliann does indeed depend upon the way one defines "anti-Mormon," and if one is to rely upon statements issued by the Brethren---including Boyd K. Packer's infamous talk---then you more or less have to concede that anything "not faith promoting" is "anti-Mormon."

As for you, BC---well, you *are* getting the full history then, aren't you! ; ) I think it is important to look at a given topic from all sides, even if that includes material which is supposedly "anti". Anything which omits the critical, or "anti", perspective cannot legitimately be called "a full history," imo.

User avatar
skippy the dead
Anonymous Coward
Posts: 1676
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 11:39 pm

Post by skippy the dead »

I do see that juliann has removed the long litany of quotes from her sig line (as has DCP, for that matter). I suppose that's a change for the better.
I may be going to hell in a bucket, babe / But at least I'm enjoying the ride.
-Grateful Dead (lyrics by John Perry Barlow)

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Post by bcspace »

You are exactly right, SWSU. My critique of juliann does indeed depend upon the way one defines "anti-Mormon,"


Which proves your point to be inaccurate since nothing was specified.

and if one is to rely upon statements issued by the Brethren---including Boyd K. Packer's infamous talk---then you more or less have to concede that anything "not faith promoting" is "anti-Mormon."


Does not follow.

As for you, BC---well, you *are* getting the full history then, aren't you! ; ) I think it is important to look at a given topic from all sides, even if that includes material which is supposedly "anti".


Sure.

Anything which omits the critical, or "anti", perspective cannot legitimately be called "a full history," imo.


Your use of the term 'anti' does not fit my understanding and usage (which I daresay is close to the understanding and usage of most other LDS) of it as I have illustrated in another recent thread on the topic. A full history cannot, by that definition, include that which is anti. Critical does not equal anti.

User avatar
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Post by Runtu »

bcspace wrote:Your use of the term 'anti' does not fit my understanding and usage (which I daresay is close to the understanding and usage of most other LDS) of it as I have illustrated in another recent thread on the topic. A full history cannot, by that definition, include that which is anti. Critical does not equal anti.


I think I agree with you here, BCSpace. One of the major problems is that, having been raised on a diet of the faith-promoting, many Mormons cannot distinguish between the critical and the "anti." When I was at BYU, one of the required texts for a religion class was Lucy Mack Smith's biography of Joseph. My wife picked it up a few years later and started reading. Not long after, I was looking for the book, and she told me she had thrown it away because it was an "anti-Mormon" book and had a bad spirit about it. I'm still not sure what bothered her about it.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Post by bcspace »

I think I agree with you here, BCSpace. One of the major problems is that, having been raised on a diet of the faith-promoting, many Mormons cannot distinguish between the critical and the "anti." When I was at BYU, one of the required texts for a religion class was Lucy Mack Smith's biography of Joseph. My wife picked it up a few years later and started reading. Not long after, I was looking for the book, and she told me she had thrown it away because it was an "anti-Mormon" book and had a bad spirit about it. I'm still not sure what bothered her about it.


I agree that there are some LDS who are quite sensitive. And I would also agree that perhaps it's better for them to stay away criticism; they wish to cultivate and nuture the spiritual foundation they already have. In your example, however, your wife read the material and made her own judgement. Nothing wrong with that.

You know what's funny is that I and my young friends around me were aware that Joseph Smith engaged in plural marriages as early as late Primary or early Aaronic Priesthood age (D&C 132 being one of my favorite sections). I continue to hear it mentioned in Church occaisionly as a class topic of discussion, including the basic Gospel Principles class intended for investigators and newbie members. And yet we regularly hear the complaint "I was never informed of this!" (which of course puts the lie in the claim that one was previously an active member of the Church). A prime example of antiMormonism.

A critic can get his or her point across without lying or sensationalizing; but the failure to do so brands one as an anti.

User avatar
Who Knows
God
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:09 pm

Post by Who Knows »

bcspace wrote:You know what's funny is that I and my young friends around me were aware that Joseph Smith engaged in plural marriages as early as late Primary or early Aaronic Priesthood age (D&C 132 being one of my favorite sections). I continue to hear it mentioned in Church occaisionly as a class topic of discussion, including the basic Gospel Principles class intended for investigators and newbie members. And yet we regularly hear the complaint "I was never informed of this!" (which of course puts the lie in the claim that one was previously an active member of the Church). A prime example of antiMormonism.


What? Will the real BC please stand up?

So let me get this straight. D&C 132 says nothing about Joseph Smith marrying teenagers, marrying other mens wives, or lying to Emma about it. That's my (and from my experience others) biggest complaint. But yet you accuse people of lying when they say they never heard that? You're not even making sense here. I was never informed of those things, and I'm not lying. Of course you can choose to believe otherwise if it makes you feel better to brand me an 'anti-mormon'.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Post by bcspace »

What? Will the real BC please stand up?


Here I am.

So let me get this straight. D&C 132 says nothing about Joseph Smith marrying teenagers, marrying other mens wives, or lying to Emma about it.


Never said it did.

But yet you accuse people of lying when they say they never heard that? You're not even making sense here.


You have just proven yourself to be an antiMormon (standard LDS usage) by your own statements.....

I have said they are lying IF they claimed never to have heard in the Church that Joseph Smith was plurally married AND they also claimed to have been active in Church as well.

YOU are saying it is unreasonable to call someone a liar for not having heard in Church about " Joseph Smith marrying teenagers, marrying other mens wives, or lying to Emma about it" something which I never did. Strawman tactics are the hallmark of antiMormonism.

I think you are also guilty of lazy research, but that is another thread....

User avatar
Who Knows
God
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:09 pm

Post by Who Knows »

bcspace wrote:YOU are saying it is unreasonable to call someone a liar for not having heard in Church about " Joseph Smith marrying teenagers, marrying other mens wives, or lying to Emma about it" something which I never did. Strawman tactics are the hallmark of antiMormonism.


Dude - you're the one creating the strawman here - i've never heard complaints solely about not hearing about Joseph Smith and polygamy.

I think you are also guilty of lazy research, but that is another thread....


That's probably true. I've never claimed to be a scholar. But what does that have to do with branding me an anti-mormon?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...

Yoda

Post by Yoda »

Wait a minute, BC. You're using strawman tactics as well. Re-read Who Knows' full statement:

Who Knows wrote:So let me get this straight. D&C 132 says nothing about Joseph Smith marrying teenagers, marrying other mens wives, or lying to Emma about it. That's my (and from my experience others) biggest complaint. But yet you accuse people of lying when they say they never heard that? You're not even making sense here. I was never informed of those things, and I'm not lying. Of course you can choose to believe otherwise if it makes you feel better to brand me an 'anti-mormon'.



Note the portion I bolded. He never stated that his problem was about not hearing about these things in Church. His problem was in not hearing about them AT ALL, in any type of Church setting.

Who Knows is about ten years younger than we are, BC. This is completely possible. Also, even though I grew up in the same era you did, I had never heard about Joseph's polyandry until a couple of years ago via the Internet.

I've had quite a few conversations with Who Knows. He is NOT what I would classify as an Anti-Mormon. He doesn't believe in the Mormon religion, anymore, but he still respects it as a religion. He does not go about attacking the Church, trying to convince others to de-convert. His wife is an active member.

User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Post by bcspace »

i've never heard complaints solely about not hearing about Joseph Smith and polygamy.


I hear it all the time. Notice in this example that James Bond separates Joseph Smith' plural marriage and who he was married to in this recent post...

The past few days there has been a long thread going on over at MAD concerning the issue of people growing up LDS and not knowing about Joseph Smith's polygamy and marrying other men's wives and such. Rather than focus on that, I'd like to talk about a recent post by charity.


Of course having been thwarted in that area, antiMormons have lazily researched the excuse of who he was 'married' to.

I think you are also guilty of lazy research, but that is another thread....

That's probably true. I've never claimed to be a scholar. But what does that have to do with branding me an anti-mormon?


Did I say being guilty of lazy research equates to antiMormonism? My only claim in this area has been that all antiMormons are guilty of lazy research (as that is what all antiMormon claims are based on).

User avatar
Who Knows
God
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:09 pm

Post by Who Knows »

liz3564 wrote:Wait a minute, BC. You're using strawman tactics as well.


BC's saying my strawman is that I implied that he wrote about the teenagers/polyandry/lying to emma. However, it wasn't a strawman, because that's the only case where i've seen people complain about Joseph Smith/polygamy - so I assumed that's what he was talking about.

If he was only talking about Joseph Smith and D&C 132 - then he's the one who created a strawman - because i've never seen that as a point of complaint.

thanks for the support liz! i'm a critic - obviously - but i'm by no means a liar/sensationalize (bc's definition of an anti-mormon).
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...

User avatar
Who Knows
God
Posts: 2455
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:09 pm

Post by Who Knows »

bcspace wrote:
The past few days there has been a long thread going on over at MAD concerning the issue of people growing up LDS and not knowing about Joseph Smith's polygamy and marrying other men's wives and such. Rather than focus on that, I'd like to talk about a recent post by charity.


Dude, I'm losing respect for you with every post.

Did I say being guilty of lazy research equates to antiMormonism? My only claim in this area has been that all antiMormons are guilty of lazy research (as that is what all antiMormon claims are based on).


whatever. you're just making crap up now.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Grant Hardy, moinmoin and 12 guests