Juliann Makes a Confession

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
bcspace
God
Posts: 18536
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm

Post by bcspace »

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.


Which is why I said your antiMormon malady can be cured if you stop reading between the lines. The fact of the matter is that you did switch from addressing what I was talking about to sonmething else which is a strawman. But I do accept your apology ;)

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.


Notice how he ignores the example. Another antiMormon tactic.

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

Post by bcspace »

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


Notice how quickly an antiMormon resorts to invective rather than addressing the example.

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.


Nothing made up. I made essentially the same statement in the Lazy Research thread and others there, like you, also chose to read between the lines. That's the real crap.

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

Post by Who Knows »

bcspace wrote:
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.


Which is why I said your antiMormon malady can be cured if you stop reading between the lines. The fact of the matter is that you did switch from addressing what I was talking about to sonmething else which is a strawman. But I do accept your apology ;)


Well, you're assumming that people are only complaining about Joseph Smith/polygamy/D&C132, when in fact there's much more to the complaint - which you conveniently leave out (i'm guessing you left that out as it is a legitimate complaint). but like i said, if it makes you feel better to only address part of the story - then that's your perogative. But you shouldn't be accusing us of lieing/sensationalizing, when you're the guilty one here.

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.


Notice how he ignores the example. Another antiMormon tactic.[/quote]

I didn't ignore the example. i was addressing the legitimate complaint. Your example was faulty in and of itself.[/b]
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:
Dude, I'm losing respect for you with every post.


Notice how quickly an antiMormon resorts to invective rather than addressing the example.


whatever. i only resorted to that after you personally attacked me. I know, i should have taken the higher ground.
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 »

BCSpace wrote:Notice how he ignores the example. Another antiMormon tactic.



He wasn't ignoring your example. He was trying to clarify what your example was. Now, frankly, I'm a little confused. Your original example was that when you were growing up, conversations involving Joseph Smith's polygamy were common place. You also mentioned that it is discussed in the current "Gospel Essentials" class.

You stated that because of these two factors, those who complained "I didn't hear about Joseph Smith's polygamy" were more than likely lying.

Who Knows' response was that it wasn't Joseph Smith's polygamy in and of itself which caused him concern. It was the fact that he lied to Emma about it, and, in addition to having multiple wives, finding out that some of these wives were teen-agers, and others were already married.

Now, I have a question for you, BC. I may open another thread on this topic...but I'm curious. When did you first hear about Joseph Smith being married to other men's wives? This came as a serious shock to me when I learned about it, which was only a couple of years ago.

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

Post by bcspace »

Who Knows' response was that it wasn't Joseph Smith's polygamy in and of itself which caused him concern. It was the fact that he lied to Emma about it, and, in addition to having multiple wives, finding out that some of these wives were teen-agers, and others were already married.


Your problem is right here. I wasn't addressing Who Knows' concerns and I did even know what his specific concerns were until he posted. However, Who Knows answered my post with his concerns rather than addressing specifically what I brought up which is by definition, a strawman.

Now, I have a question for you, BC. I may open another thread on this topic...but I'm curious. When did you first hear about Joseph Smith being married to other men's wives? This came as a serious shock to me when I learned about it, which was only a couple of years ago.


The issue of Joseph Smith marrying other men's wives is quite a different from the issue I was addressing (and gave an example for). But yes, you may certainly start another thread. It is not wise in debate to allow oneself to get sidetracked into a different issue until a conclusion can be reached on the first one.

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

Post by Who Knows »

bcspace wrote:Your problem is right here. I wasn't addressing Who Knows' concerns and I did even know what his specific concerns were until he posted. However, Who Knows answered my post with his concerns rather than addressing specifically what I brought up which is by definition, a strawman.


No, the problem is that you weren't addressing anyone's concerns. You basically made up some scenario where you could call someone an anti-mormon, and then stick us all with that label. It's called sensationalizing.
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...

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

Post by Mister Scratch »

bcspace wrote:
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.


No... My point was every bit as "accurate" as juliann's.

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.


Have you not read "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect"?

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.


"Critical" might not always equal "anti," but "anti" frequently does equal critical. Thus, my initial read on juliann's post remains correct. QED.

User avatar
Mary
God
Posts: 1774
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 3:45 pm

Post by Mary »

That was a fascinating thread.
Did you note Juliann's comments towards the end. I kind of chuckled because I do get where she is coming from.
Something along the lines of

'yeah Joseph Smith is a bad man, and the LDS church is a bad church...next point....'

Made me think actually. Because I don't know that Joseph Smith is a bad man, and I don't know that the LDS Church is a bad church.
But I couldn't cope with the discrepancy between Joseph Smith the man, and Joseph Smith as he is portrayed.

I think the churches teachings are partly to blame. We were taught that Joseph Smith acted morally and righteously and was guilty of no great sin (as per the 1st vision account)we were taught, 'by their fruits shall ye know them', we were also taught the importance of a solid foundation, we were also taught that Joseph is either a fraud or a prophet with no inbetween.

The church has taught a very black and white viewpoint, one cannot therefore blame members for only seeing two options. This is how I felt upon leaving.
It was either true or false.

Now I appreciate, despite the words of the president of the church and others, that that is too simple a choice.

Joseph was not neccessarily a bad man, he certainly wasn't a bad man all the time and in all areas. The church may have useful aspects to it and not so useful aspects to it.

It's so much more grey than the true/false....good/bad.... that Juliann seems to project on to critics of the church.

Just my opinion

Mary

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

Post by Mister Scratch »

Miss Taken wrote:That was a fascinating thread.
Did you note Juliann's comments towards the end. I kind of chuckled because I do get where she is coming from.
Something along the lines of

'yeah Joseph Smith is a bad man, and the LDS church is a bad church...next point....'

Made me think actually. Because I don't know that Joseph Smith is a bad man, and I don't know that the LDS Church is a bad church.
But I couldn't cope with the discrepancy between Joseph Smith the man, and Joseph Smith as he is portrayed.

I think the churches teachings are partly to blame. We were taught that Joseph Smith acted morally and righteously and was guilty of no great sin (as per the 1st vision account)we were taught, 'by their fruits shall ye know them', we were also taught the importance of a solid foundation, we were also taught that Joseph is either a fraud or a prophet with no inbetween.

The church has taught a very black and white viewpoint, one cannot therefore blame members for only seeing two options. This is how I felt upon leaving.
It was either true or false.

Now I appreciate, despite the words of the president of the church and others, that that is too simple a choice.

Joseph was not neccessarily a bad man, he certainly wasn't a bad man all the time and in all areas. The church may have useful aspects to it and not so useful aspects to it.

It's so much more grey than the true/false....good/bad.... that Juliann seems to project on to critics of the church.

Just my opinion

Mary


Yes, the conclusion of the thread was very funny indeed. Essentially, juliann resorted to flailing about, with nothing useful to contribute to the discussion (which was very quickly shut down by Orpheus/Dan_G). I agree with you, MT, that one of the key reasons these kinds of accusations arise lies in the fact that Joseph Smith really is lionized, and portrayed to be more or less a saint. One seldom hears *anything* about the more negative or embarrassing aspects of his character in Sunday school. Or, the positive aspects of his character are used in deceptive ways, such as the story about how he turned down a drink of brandy before his leg operation, which is used to support the WoW.

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

Post by skippy the dead »

Mister Scratch wrote:
Miss Taken wrote:That was a fascinating thread.
Did you note Juliann's comments towards the end. I kind of chuckled because I do get where she is coming from.
Something along the lines of

'yeah Joseph Smith is a bad man, and the LDS church is a bad church...next point....'

Made me think actually. Because I don't know that Joseph Smith is a bad man, and I don't know that the LDS Church is a bad church.
But I couldn't cope with the discrepancy between Joseph Smith the man, and Joseph Smith as he is portrayed.

I think the churches teachings are partly to blame. We were taught that Joseph Smith acted morally and righteously and was guilty of no great sin (as per the 1st vision account)we were taught, 'by their fruits shall ye know them', we were also taught the importance of a solid foundation, we were also taught that Joseph is either a fraud or a prophet with no inbetween.

The church has taught a very black and white viewpoint, one cannot therefore blame members for only seeing two options. This is how I felt upon leaving.
It was either true or false.

Now I appreciate, despite the words of the president of the church and others, that that is too simple a choice.

Joseph was not neccessarily a bad man, he certainly wasn't a bad man all the time and in all areas. The church may have useful aspects to it and not so useful aspects to it.

It's so much more grey than the true/false....good/bad.... that Juliann seems to project on to critics of the church.

Just my opinion

Mary


Yes, the conclusion of the thread was very funny indeed. Essentially, juliann resorted to flailing about, with nothing useful to contribute to the discussion (which was very quickly shut down by Orpheus/Dan_G). I agree with you, MT, that one of the key reasons these kinds of accusations arise lies in the fact that Joseph Smith really is lionized, and portrayed to be more or less a saint. One seldom hears *anything* about the more negative or embarrassing aspects of his character in Sunday school. Or, the positive aspects of his character are used in deceptive ways, such as the story about how he turned down a drink of brandy before his leg operation, which is used to support the WoW.


If anyone that had even a whiff of critic about them had posted something similar to what juliann did at the end of that thread (i.e., "yeah, the spirit told me so, all will be revealed. . . what next"), they would have been banned without warning (some of us have been banned for far less). I, for one, found her behavior to be appalling. I can see why it was shut down - to save juliann from herself. It wasn't going to get any 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
Runtu
God
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm

Post by Runtu »

skippy the dead wrote:If anyone that had even a whiff of critic about them had posted something similar to what juliann did at the end of that thread (i.e., "yeah, the spirit told me so, all will be revealed. . . what next"), they would have been banned without warning (some of us have been banned for far less). I, for one, found her behavior to be appalling. I can see why it was shut down - to save juliann from herself. It wasn't going to get any better.


It certainly does illustrate that we weren't banned for being "rude," doesn't it? But then we're supposedly showing our true colors now.
Runtu's Rincón

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

User avatar
Bond...James Bond
He-Who-Has-Not-Sinned (Recently)
Posts: 4627
Joined: Mon Nov 06, 2006 10:49 pm

Post by Bond...James Bond »

Runtu wrote:
skippy the dead wrote:If anyone that had even a whiff of critic about them had posted something similar to what juliann did at the end of that thread (i.e., "yeah, the spirit told me so, all will be revealed. . . what next"), they would have been banned without warning (some of us have been banned for far less). I, for one, found her behavior to be appalling. I can see why it was shut down - to save juliann from herself. It wasn't going to get any better.


It certainly does illustrate that we weren't banned for being "rude," doesn't it? But then we're supposedly showing our true colors now.


The Mods need to realize that people talk differently in different situations. When someone is on MAD, they clean up their language and stuff because those are the rules. On MD, the rules are relaxed and people can be more colourful in expressing their opinions. It's about context, something the Mods don't understand.
"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

User avatar
cksalmon
God
Posts: 1267
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 4:20 pm

Post by cksalmon »

bcspace wrote: 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).


I also would have accepted idiotic, self-serving, and/or presentist.

CKS

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22509
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Post by moksha »

liz3564 wrote: I'm a little confused. Your original example was that when you were growing up, conversations involving Joseph Smith's polygamy were common place. You also mentioned that it is discussed in the current "Gospel Essentials" class.

It wasn't mentioned when I took this class a few years ago. Somehow, the only folks I imagine who would have missed this, are those from BIC sheltered Mormon environments. They wouldn't be in the Gospels Essentials class anyway.

Have you ever wondered how severe the cognitive dissonance must be for those members from extreme faith-promoting backgrounds must be when exposed to unfiltered materials, if the Apologetic response is to deny that cognitive dissonance happens?
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

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

Post by Runtu »

cksalmon wrote:
bcspace wrote: 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).


I also would have accepted idiotic, self-serving, and/or presentist.

CKS


Yeah, that works, too. Why is it so hard for people to accept that we can do the same research and come to different conclusions?
Runtu's Rincón

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

User avatar
why me
God
Posts: 9589
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 2:19 pm

Post by why me »

Who Knows wrote:
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.

Gosh, Who Knows, I hate to say this to you but have you realized that emma got over it? You know the lying. You see, Who Knows, we can't pick and choose our battles. Emma never denied her husband was a prophet. Now that says a lot doesn't it. If Emma can get over it, why can't you? Do you get my point?

User avatar
Sethbag
God
Posts: 6855
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 4:52 am

Post by Sethbag »

Emma also believed Joseph when he told her he hadn't taken any new wives for a while before his death. After his death, when she found out from a friend that he had in fact taken some more wives, she is supposed to have said something like "then he deserved the death he died!" Not sure these are the words of a woman who "got over it".

Yoda

Post by Yoda »

why me wrote:
Who Knows wrote:
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.

Gosh, Who Knows, I hate to say this to you but have you realized that emma got over it? You know the lying. You see, Who Knows, we can't pick and choose our battles. Emma never denied her husband was a prophet. Now that says a lot doesn't it. If Emma can get over it, why can't you? Do you get my point?


Did she "get over it"? Or did she simply love him in spite of it? Based on her actions in helping organize the RLDS Church, I tend to think the latter.

In any case, I understand your point about us obviously not being in a position to judge. Only One has the authority to do that.

But I'm hoping that you are human enough to understand why the discovery of this action can cause concern to a faithful Latter-Day Saint who had never been exposed to this. There are so many unanswered questions.

As I stated on an earlier thread....Let's suppose that Joseph did sin in this instance. Or maybe it was a gross misunderstanding of the Plural Marriage law. If that were the case, would that negate all of the good that he did? No, it would not.

However, for us soulful sinners, it would have been nice to have some documentation of the repentance process as a learning tool for the rest of us. ;)

User avatar
beastie
God
Posts: 14216
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 8:26 pm

Post by beastie »

In regards to Emma's beliefs in Joseph's mission, one thing should be clarified: Brigham Young pushed the idea that Emma wanted her sons to lead the church and pushed them towards the RLDS when the Utah church wouldn't comply. However, I just finished reading the biography of the youngest son of Joseph Smith, David, (From Mission to Madness by Avery) and the information in that book does not support Brigham's claim. It appears that Emma really didn't have anything to do with any LDS sect until the RLDS began heavily courting Joseph III to be their prophet. Joseph III did not agree until he went through his own spiritual soul-searching and prayer, and AFTER he agreed to become prophet then Emma became involved in the group. Moreover, the attempts of the RLDS to court the family were rebuffed at first. Charles Bidamon more or less told the RLDS that none of the family wanted anything to do with any of it (I'll try to find the exact quote later). Whether that reflected the wishes of Bidamon alone or of Emma as well is speculation. But I don't think Emma's behavior, after Joseph's death, is consistent with the idea of her having a firm conviction of his role as prophet. I think her behavior is more consistent with someone who was always going to support her family members in their decisions and life-choices.

She certainly never "got over" his polygamy, and continued to detest polygamy and view it as adultery till the end. This is clearly the attitude she taught her children, who were at risk of emotional upheaval when they learned the truth. (which they did to varying degrees - David definitely was convinced Joseph practiced polygamy after his Utah missions)
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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 17 guests