Juliann Makes a Confession

[_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.

[_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 BKP'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," in my opinion.

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.

[_Runtu]

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.

[_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.

[_Who Knows]

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'.

[_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....

[_Who Knows]

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?

[_Yoda]

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

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.

[_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).

[_Who Knows]

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).