It is currently Thu Dec 13, 2018 5:11 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: MAD's Martha Brotherton Thread
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 1:40 pm 
Master Mahan

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm
Posts: 5604
I don't know if anyone else has been following this, but there is a lengthy thread over on the fittingly named MADboard which I have found fascinating. What has been so interesting about it, imo, is the lengths to which the apologists are going in order to discredit her story. (Don Bradley has been doing a stand-up job of sticking to the facts, something which has proven highly problematic to the TBM posters over there.) So far, the TBMs have tried to discredit the story by: pointing out the involvement of Bennett; comparing her to Martha Beck; comparing her to the incident at Roswell; claiming that her memory is shoddy; saying (most bizarrely, but then again this is coming from Wade) that simply because there are six LDS witness against her, the sheer number proves she is wrong; saying that she is under the sway of the adversary (yes, Hammer was a participant in this thread); saying that objectively evaluating historical data is impossible, since everyone is biased. Anyways, I highly recommend the thread! My favorite post comes from one of my favorite guys, Wade Englund:

wenglund wrote:
Do you understand the difference between the leaders suggesting that things be kept private (I will take your word about this being a "pattern"), and their allegedly suggesting that those not involved in the practice (Mary and John) blattantly lie in discrediting the published statements of their own family member?

I can see why the Church leaders in question may, themselves, have on ocassion played semantics in order to keep the practice of polygamy private.
(emphasis added)

Lol!!!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:03 pm 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 918
An unfortunate own goal from Weng.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 9:15 pm 
He-Who-Has-Not-Sinned (Recently)
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:49 pm
Posts: 4627
Location: MI6-Private Quarters
This thread just closed. The wrap of the thread was that as follows:

DonBradley got a three day suspension:

Quote:
Have a nice three day suspension and come back. --Chaos


Hammer got a suspension, a posting limit, and his last warning:

Quote:
Hammer you are on the top ten list of problem posters. You will be taking another break from the board. You are suspended and it has to be your second or third time. You will be coming back at no more than ten posts per day and next time you will be banned. --Chaos

_________________
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:08 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Bond...James Bond wrote:
This thread just closed. The wrap of the thread was that as follows:

DonBradley got a three day suspension:

Quote:
Have a nice three day suspension and come back. --Chaos


Hammer got a suspension, a posting limit, and his last warning:

Quote:
Hammer you are on the top ten list of problem posters. You will be taking another break from the board. You are suspended and it has to be your second or third time. You will be coming back at no more than ten posts per day and next time you will be banned. --Chaos


Threads of this nature will continue to be problematic for MAD until they realize that it's possible to have a decent conversation about Joseph's implementation of polygamy without all the angst that the TBM's bring to the table. If they keep going, pretty soon they'll be down to only a handful of posters and it will look like a deserted ZLMB.

The nature of healthy discussion includes the uncomfortable. I understand the trauma that can happen to a testimony that is unprepared to read about Joseph's manipulations, his lies, his deceit, his secrecy with those who agreed to his demands and his public whispering campaign against those women who rejected him. His ego was as fragile as an eggshell, and he didn't deal with rejection well when it was on a personal level. This phenomena got worse as he got older, and if a TBM is so fragile that they are unable to deal with this sort of information coming out, then the result is wholesale suspensions and banning posters in order to keep it all under wraps.

If Don is smart, he'll dust MAD off his shoes, turn his back, and walk away.

Maybe we'll be lucky, and Hammer will show up here. Wouldn't that be a hoot?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:12 pm 
He-Who-Has-Not-Sinned (Recently)
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:49 pm
Posts: 4627
Location: MI6-Private Quarters
This just in from Madame Fancher (she reports to me when Scratch is sleeping :)

DonBradley wrote:
I've found much of the recent discussion stimulating and productive. But I've also found much of it noxious and laborious. I'm going to take a break from the MAD boards for a while.


I'd absolutely love to see Hammer here. He'd really bloom under the minimum moderation policy.

_________________
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:12 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:52 am
Posts: 6855
Quote:
Hammer:
It sounds like historians of this ilk only want to publish items that would only be found, if found at all, in the rag magazines sold at the end of check out stands.

I don't know that historians of this ilk would have any credence with the intelligent kind of people.

Ok, so now he's been suspended, but with comments like this, and other obnoxious crap in that thread, if he didn't so often bear his testimony of the church, he'd have been outright banned ages ago. It's unbelievable the crap he's gotten away with. So the mods have announced he's on thin ice. Well, for a TBM, that's really saying a lot. He's gotten away with murder on that board so far, with a couple of suspensions.

And meanwhile, I've read a lot of what Don posted in that thread, and he was not making person attacks. He was fending off some attacking TBMs with civil and polite discussion of his historical methodology and standards and whatnot. Unbelievable that he was suspended for "personal attacks". Unbefreakinglievable. How does anything at all that Don wrote in that thread come within even a mile of the crap that Hammer spewed nonstop throughout the thread. Don was contributing with facts, logical arguments, etc. and all Hammer did was snipe at him with moronic attacks and snipes.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:07 am 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 918
Sethbag wrote:
Quote:
Hammer:
It sounds like historians of this ilk only want to publish items that would only be found, if found at all, in the rag magazines sold at the end of check out stands.

I don't know that historians of this ilk would have any credence with the intelligent kind of people.

Ok, so now he's been suspended, but with comments like this, and other obnoxious crap in that thread, if he didn't so often bear his testimony of the church, he'd have been outright banned ages ago. It's unbelievable the crap he's gotten away with. So the mods have announced he's on thin ice. Well, for a TBM, that's really saying a lot. He's gotten away with murder on that board so far, with a couple of suspensions.


Preach it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:17 am 
Local Furry
User avatar

Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 7:44 am
Posts: 820
Location: Virtual reality Utah
I didn't find out about Joseph Smith's polyandrous wives untill early last year.(under realistic research terms) When i had been out for 2 1/2 years. And like most the rest of you i was a regular in all standard classes and seminary graduate. In fact, i had asked one of my doctrine teachers once about the polygamous wives of brig young and had been thoroughly discouraged from asking such questions. Or even outright told that it wasent a big enough deal to worry about or to continue questioning. I figured it was just one of those things i would be told when they thought i was ready. Now i realise they where just trying to hide it or cover it up.

_________________
One nice thing is, ze game of love is never called on account of darkness - Pepe Le Pew


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:17 pm 
Master Mahan

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm
Posts: 5604
Sethbag wrote:
Quote:
Hammer:
It sounds like historians of this ilk only want to publish items that would only be found, if found at all, in the rag magazines sold at the end of check out stands.

I don't know that historians of this ilk would have any credence with the intelligent kind of people.

Ok, so now he's been suspended, but with comments like this, and other obnoxious crap in that thread, if he didn't so often bear his testimony of the church, he'd have been outright banned ages ago. It's unbelievable the crap he's gotten away with. So the mods have announced he's on thin ice. Well, for a TBM, that's really saying a lot. He's gotten away with murder on that board so far, with a couple of suspensions.

And meanwhile, I've read a lot of what Don posted in that thread, and he was not making person attacks. He was fending off some attacking TBMs with civil and polite discussion of his historical methodology and standards and whatnot. Unbelievable that he was suspended for "personal attacks". Unbefreakinglievable. How does anything at all that Don wrote in that thread come within even a mile of the crap that Hammer spewed nonstop throughout the thread. Don was contributing with facts, logical arguments, etc. and all Hammer did was snipe at him with moronic attacks and snipes.


What is so peculiar (imo) about the MADmods' toleration of Hammer is the fact that, based on a number of accounts, Hammer is actually a sockpuppet!!. Hammer has been totally banned at least twice before, and yet juliann, Dan_G & Co. allow him (actually, I believe it is a *her*) back in again and again. They have said before that they want to cultivate "a certain atmosphere," which apparently means a rabid, vicious, totally Neanderthal atmosphere is which fundamentalist TBMs are given free reign.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 2:49 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm
Posts: 4947
I am pleased that the Brotherton discussion at MA&D was of sufficient interest to warrant commentary here. I certainly found it to be enlightening as well as enjoyable. And, while I was somewhat disappointed when Don decided to bow out of the discussion (I hope Kevin G. and Scratch don't read anything sinister or pusillanimous into what he did), I do accept his rationale for doing so, and I look forward to reading his paper if/when it is published.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:23 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:19 pm
Posts: 9589
I suppose that the Brotherton thread was interesting but at the end of the day, I am not sure just what it proved. And I am sure that if such a story would run today, it would make the front page of the National Enquirer. But so what? Throughout a life, there are many interesting happenings and understandings and Martha and Brigham are no exception, neither are other human beings who were a part of church history back in the good old days.

Life is life and I don't expect blandness from any life. But regardless of Brotherton and what exactly is the truth, the book of Mormon still stands for what it is. And it hasn't been disproven. And I might add that some of those polygamous wives received devine revelation of the truthfulness of the practice. Martha missed out on something special during her life. And such is life....we all make choices.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:45 pm 
Master Mahan

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm
Posts: 5604
wenglund wrote:
I am pleased that the Brotherton discussion at MA&D was of sufficient interest to warrant commentary here. I certainly found it to be enlightening as well as enjoyable. And, while I was somewhat disappointed when Don decided to bow out of the discussion (I hope Kevin G. and Scratch don't read anything sinister or pusillanimous into what he did), I do accept his rationale for doing so, and I look forward to reading his paper if/when it is published.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-


Why would I read anything sinister into Don's behavior? It was clear that he was fed up with the unfair moderating policies, and with Hammer's, yours, and bsix's idiocy. I see nothing "sinister" about that.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 5:43 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
why me wrote:
I suppose that the Brotherton thread was interesting but at the end of the day, I am not sure just what it proved. And I am sure that if such a story would run today, it would make the front page of the National Enquirer. But so what? Throughout a life, there are many interesting happenings and understandings and Martha and Brigham are no exception, neither are other human beings who were a part of church history back in the good old days.

Life is life and I don't expect blandness from any life. But regardless of Brotherton and what exactly is the truth, the book of Mormon still stands for what it is. And it hasn't been disproven. And I might add that some of those polygamous wives received devine revelation of the truthfulness of the practice. Martha missed out on something special during her life. And such is life....we all make choices.


What exactly did she miss out on?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:13 pm 
Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:03 am
Posts: 324
why me wrote:
Life is life and I don't expect blandness from any life. But regardless of Brotherton and what exactly is the truth, the book of Mormon still stands for what it is. And it hasn't been disproven.


Forgive me for being myself for just a moment, but BURDEN OF GODDAMN PROOF!

Every study I have ever found, every person that does any semblence of research into the topic has found a grand total of f***-all by way of evidence for the Book of Mormon.

The fact that you keep repeating your little mantra doesn't make it true.

So, time to buck up, play a man (or woman as the case may be) and prove the Book of Mormon.

Can't do it? Guess what. That means it's been disproven. Yay for the scientific method.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:24 pm 
Holy Ghost

Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 7:32 am
Posts: 918
why me wrote:
I suppose that the Brotherton thread was interesting but at the end of the day, I am not sure just what it proved.


It proved this, at the very least:

Weng wrote:
I can see why the Church leaders in question may, themselves, have on ocassion played semantics in order to keep the practice of polygamy private.


To put it another way, it proved that the Church leaders in question lied to the flock in order to maintain the secrecy of a practice in which they were indulging, of which they knew full well others would disapprove.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:09 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm
Posts: 14216
I followed the thread for a while and then just starting skimming. Did anyone address why church leaders slandered her by calling her a whore from her mother's breast? And then why did BY have a whore sealed to him?

_________________
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:52 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:19 pm
Posts: 9589
Bryan Inks wrote:
why me wrote:
Life is life and I don't expect blandness from any life. But regardless of Brotherton and what exactly is the truth, the book of Mormon still stands for what it is. And it hasn't been disproven.


Forgive me for being myself for just a moment, but BURDEN OF GODDAMN PROOF!

Every study I have ever found, every person that does any semblence of research into the topic has found a grand total of f***-all by way of evidence for the Book of Mormon.

The fact that you keep repeating your little mantra doesn't make it true.

So, time to buck up, play a man (or woman as the case may be) and prove the Book of Mormon.

Can't do it? Guess what. That means it's been disproven. Yay for the scientific method.

For members, including for some exers on this board, the proof was in the testimony of the holy ghost testifying of its truthfulness. And that is the rub. Now it is not up to me to prove the holy ghost true, but it is up to you to prove him false. For LDS members, the truth is in the witness. For people like yourself, the proof may be in the science. However, science has not proven the Book of Mormon false.

How can one prove the bible true? Or the Koran? It can not be done. Likewise for the book of Mormon. And so, be a man and prove the book of Mormon false. Can't do it? That must mean that it is true. Hence, the spirit is still working.

God is one big question mark and the most that people can say is: I don't know.

And as far as Brothertom is concerned, well, I stand by what I said. I have no idea what happened at that time and neither does anyone here. Yes, we have papers written by so and so but so what? A paper is just a paper, without emotion and without mind. Too bad we cannot bring back all the parties from the grave and have a nice chat about it all.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 1:54 am 
Elder
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 11:03 am
Posts: 324
why me wrote:
For members, including for some exers on this board, the proof was in the testimony of the holy ghost testifying of its truthfulness. And that is the rub. Now it is not up to me to prove the holy ghost true, but it is up to you to prove him false. For LDS members, the truth is in the witness. For people like yourself, the proof may be in the science. However, science has not proven the Book of Mormon false.


Do we really need to relearn what Burden of Proof means?

You make the claim that the Holy Ghost is/or teaches Truth. Therefore, you need to prove the Holy Ghost exists and is/or teaches said Truth.

I don't throw out these silly requirements that you must disprove Intelligent Falling or The Giant, F****** Invisible, Intangible Spider in My Backyard.

Then again. . . I don't claim either is real or truth.

Whinging Me wrote:
How can one prove the bible true? Or the Koran? It can not be done. Likewise for the book of Mormon. And so, be a man and prove the book of Mormon false. Can't do it? That must mean that it is true. Hence, the spirit is still working.


A. I don't see anyone claiming that the Bible is true. Nor the Qur'an. So stop blowing smoke up our collective asses.

B. Science has pretty much disproven everything in the Book of Mormon. No multi-million man, apocalyptical battles. No steel, horses, elephants, chariots, coins. No pre-Columbian Christianity. No Jews or the decendents thereof.

Yeah. . . I'd say that pretty much disproves the Book of Mormon as being "true". Now, before your garments get in a twist, I'm not saying that there are not true principles included. But there are also true principles in Star Wars and that doesn't make it "true".

Eat cake not mud and just admit it.

Why Me wrote:
God is one big question mark and the most that people can say is: I don't know.


Except you aren't saying that. In fact, you are claiming that God isn't a "big question mark" but is in reality a "giant exclamation point".


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 3:51 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:52 am
Posts: 6855
harmony wrote:
why me wrote:
I suppose that the Brotherton thread was interesting but at the end of the day, I am not sure just what it proved. And I am sure that if such a story would run today, it would make the front page of the National Enquirer. But so what? Throughout a life, there are many interesting happenings and understandings and Martha and Brigham are no exception, neither are other human beings who were a part of church history back in the good old days.

Life is life and I don't expect blandness from any life. But regardless of Brotherton and what exactly is the truth, the book of Mormon still stands for what it is. And it hasn't been disproven. And I might add that some of those polygamous wives received devine revelation of the truthfulness of the practice. Martha missed out on something special during her life. And such is life....we all make choices.


What exactly did she miss out on?


She missed out on being Brigham's 37th wife. Duh! What do you mean, what did she miss out on? What could possibly have been better than being one of Brigham's 37 wives?

Why Me, has the Quran been disproven? Do you believe, and stake your life on anything that isn't disproven? Do you believe in the orbiting teapot?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:44 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:19 pm
Posts: 9589
Bryan Inks wrote:
why me wrote:
For members, including for some exers on this board, the proof was in the testimony of the holy ghost testifying of its truthfulness. And that is the rub. Now it is not up to me to prove the holy ghost true, but it is up to you to prove him false. For LDS members, the truth is in the witness. For people like yourself, the proof may be in the science. However, science has not proven the Book of Mormon false.


Do we really need to relearn what Burden of Proof means?

You make the claim that the Holy Ghost is/or teaches Truth. Therefore, you need to prove the Holy Ghost exists and is/or teaches said Truth.

I don't throw out these silly requirements that you must disprove Intelligent Falling or The Giant, F****** Invisible, Intangible Spider in My Backyard.

Then again. . . I don't claim either is real or truth.

Whinging Me wrote:
How can one prove the bible true? Or the Koran? It can not be done. Likewise for the book of Mormon. And so, be a man and prove the book of Mormon false. Can't do it? That must mean that it is true. Hence, the spirit is still working.


A. I don't see anyone claiming that the Bible is true. Nor the Qur'an. So stop blowing smoke up our collective asses.

B. Science has pretty much disproven everything in the Book of Mormon. No multi-million man, apocalyptical battles. No steel, horses, elephants, chariots, coins. No pre-Columbian Christianity. No Jews or the decendents thereof.

Yeah. . . I'd say that pretty much disproves the Book of Mormon as being "true". Now, before your garments get in a twist, I'm not saying that there are not true principles included. But there are also true principles in Star Wars and that doesn't make it "true".

Eat cake not mud and just admit it.

Why Me wrote:
God is one big question mark and the most that people can say is: I don't know.


Except you aren't saying that. In fact, you are claiming that God isn't a "big question mark" but is in reality a "giant exclamation point".

Since the critics spend a great amount of time trying to disprove the bofm and have failed, I can see your point. If proven it false has been impossible, then I can see your point in turning the burden of proof to those who believe the book to be true.

Plus, muslims who believe in the Koran do believe that it is true. It is not up to muslims to prove its truthfulness but it is up to critics of islam to prove it wrong. Plus, there are many bible believing christians who believe the bible is true. How can they prove it to be true and why should they? However, for atheists, they would need to prove it false.

And yes, I can claim that atheists cannot claim that there is no god, since god cannot be disproven. The most a critic can say is: I don't know. And even dawkins in his God Delusion book cannot say that there is no god, although he does claim to do so...but he cannot prove it through science. Thus, the question mark for atheists.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 10:47 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:19 pm
Posts: 9589
harmony wrote:
why me wrote:
I suppose that the Brotherton thread was interesting but at the end of the day, I am not sure just what it proved. And I am sure that if such a story would run today, it would make the front page of the National Enquirer. But so what? Throughout a life, there are many interesting happenings and understandings and Martha and Brigham are no exception, neither are other human beings who were a part of church history back in the good old days.

Life is life and I don't expect blandness from any life. But regardless of Brotherton and what exactly is the truth, the book of Mormon still stands for what it is. And it hasn't been disproven. And I might add that some of those polygamous wives received devine revelation of the truthfulness of the practice. Martha missed out on something special during her life. And such is life....we all make choices.


What exactly did she miss out on?

Maybe when we are all dead, we will see the blessings that these women now have.

Also, lucy walker (among others) understood the blessings because they received a heavenly celestial understanding of its devine nature. Do you wish to challenge that vision that she received? ( do you wish to challenge the other witnesses the other women received?)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 76 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Meadowchik and 44 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group