Juliann Makes a Confession

[_Who Knows]

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.

[_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.

[_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.

[_Who Knows]

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]

[_Who Knows]

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.

[_Yoda]

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.

[_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.

[_Who Knows]

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.

[_Mister Scratch]

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 BKP'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," 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.

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

[_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