Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Jaynee Doe

New Member
  • Posts

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jaynee Doe

  1. I have been on the boards for years.

    As have I.

     

    It is the critics on the internet not this board that I was talking about.

    Yes, I’m aware of that. However, I’ve frequented numerous LDS-related boards for at least a decade and have never, ever, seen a critic impugn Emma’s character the way you have described in this thread.

     

    They keep it going to stir the pot by showing that all was not well in the home of emma and joseph.

    All was not well between Emma and Joseph when he died. A serious rift had developed between them over Joseph's polygamy, and it's possible the marriage would have deteriorated much further if Joseph had not been murdered and had continued practicing polygamy. And discussing that does not equate to "stirring the pot." As has been explained to you twice now, when it comes to Emma's supposed flaws, Brigham and the Utah Mormons were the ones guilty of that.

     

    The active lds tend not to bring it up.

    Sure they do if they enjoy LDS history and it’s the topic of discussion. Otherwise, I agree with you, but then, neither do the non-active LDS or the non-LDS. 

     

    I have heard it over and over again about the attempted murder and the kick down the stairs. And it is the critics who usually bring it up. Lets face it. Anything that show Joseph in a negative light is a favorite for the critic to bring up.

    Okay, now I understand. This is not about Emma at all, but rather, about Joseph. Why didn’t you say so in the first place?

     

    I agree there are those who will say anything, including outright lies, to denigrate Joseph. However, I’ve also observed there are those who will say anything, including outright lies, to elevate him to the point where there is little resemblance to the complex, and sometimes flawed man he actually was. 

     

    But as far as those who will say anything to make Joseph look bad, I can think of only one board where the behavior you describe is rampant, and in my opinion, these people are not "critics," but "anti-Mormons." Perhaps there are other boards that do so as well and I'm unaware of them. But, like I said, I've been frequenting LDS-related boards for a very long time now, and in my experience, the vast majority of people who bring up Emma's behavior, be they critic and/or believer, are those who enjoy LDS history, and they are only interested in what really happened. That’s not to say there aren’t disagreements, even heated ones, between the two groups. But they're generally not born of any nefarious intentions, as you insist in this thread.

     

    In fact, your implication that critics are guilty of constantly bringing Emma's behavior up “over and over again” to “stir the pot” is so far removed from reality, it makes you look guilty of that which you condemn. 

     

    Elphaba

  2. But lets face it, the critics flew with the story...and kept it going. 

     

    What critics? Where? When?

     

    The only so-called "critics" of Emma I have ever seen are those cinepro has already listed, and I've read everything about her I could get my hands on. 

     

     

    Thus, my point. So, was emma a mild manner woman after she left the saints? Did her personality take a change for the better or was she the attempted murderer and violent person? Was she angry about polygamy or just disappointed. And yet, she seemed to take her second husband's cheating with mild manners. Or did she?

     

    Your "point" is nonsensical, because 1) from a historical perspective there is nothing wrong with asking these questions and 2) the historical perspective demonstrates the only people who purposely and continuously impugned her character ("kept it going") were Brigham Young and the Utah Mormons. 

     

    So, again, who are these so-called "critics" and what have they actually said?

     

    Elphaba

  3. A woman who has previously been sealed must receive a cancellation of that sealing from the First Presidency before she may be sealed to another man in her lifetime. A man who has been divorced from a woman who was sealed to him must receive a sealing clearance from the First Presidency before another woman may be sealed to him. . . .

     

    Is anyone here able to explain the difference between a "cancellation of that sealing" and a "sealing clearance," as well as why the requirements for men are different than those for women?

     

    Thank you in advance.

  4. I am a man, but I feel as though I have emotionally and physically been through child birth three times the same way my wife has.  

     

    (The bold is mine.)

     

    Are you saying you have literally experienced what childbirth physically feels like? If so, what did you do to have that experience? 

     

    I hope you did something similar to the two men in this video, because otherwise, I'm not buying it!  :P

  5. . Instead of a model that follows what would look more like a gage some are splitting (male*) sexuality into more of a spectrum in a grid of 4 different areas of attraction and where sexual attraction is only one feasible area that helps to develop their expression of sexuality. For example, one man stated they mentioned was generally sexually attracted to women, but had such a hard time trusting them based on his past that he felt safer in intimate relationships with men.  The idea of Bi, Straight, and gay are becoming more heavily antiquated in its designations. In this old format Josh and Lolly can't make sense without one/both of them not being honest or having something really wrong with them. In newer understandings of the dynamics of sexuality, it most certainly can and does make sense. 

     

     

     

     

    With luv,

    BD

     

    *I state male because the research on female sexuality is still not the greatest. Most models focus more on male sexuality as a basis.I

     

    I would love to see the research you were given at this workshop. I think everyone who has done any research into SSA realizes the Kinsey scale is antiquated; however, I've yet to see any credible (not sponsored by an anti-gay group) research that wouldn't consider the man in your example to be bi-sexual given he is sexually attracted enough to men to choose to be intimate with them, even though he his sexual attraction to women is much stronger. It's my understanding a true homosexual would not be able to do that. But, I've not seen the research you're describing, so I could be wrong. Would you mind directing me to any links to the research, or perhaps the authors' names so I can read about this myself? I would really appreciate it.

  6. Does any Saint really believe that because GBH didn't practice earthly polygamy he is automatically excluded from the highest degree of Celestial Kingdom?

    I have an elderly uncle who does. In fact, he believes the reason the Church now teaches that people will be able to meet and marry someone after death is because polygamy ended, thereby making it impossible for many men to marry two or more wives while on earth. He has every intention of taking on another wife after he's passed away so that he can enter the highest degree of the CK. And while he's never said so to me, I presume he believes GBH will do the same.

  7. Oh so how many Temples did they build?

    I don't understand your question. Are you asking how many temples has The Church of Jesus Christ (Rigdonites) built? If not, would you please clarify your question?

    If that is what you're asking, then the answer is, as far as I know, none. What does that have to do with what I wrote about SR?

  8. I remember visiting some history sites near Palmyra and one room was devoted to showing the beginnings of Mormonism chronologically with photos and art. I kept looking for something on SR. It was as if he never existed. I asked the missionary sister and she didn't know why or really much about him.

    As far as I recall, Rigdon was never in Palmyra. (Does anyone know otherwise? If so, please feel free to correct me.) Is it possible the artwork only portrayed the Church's pre-Ohio history?

  9. I was just reading about the testimonies of Sydney Rigdon and his wife here.

    . . . .

    I'm sure they were both baptized, and they seem to have retained a testimony to the BOM all their lives, but didn't they die outside the Church?

    Following Joseph's murder, a number of men claimed God had told each of them he was the one personally chosen to replace Joseph as president and prophet of the one true church. Their genuine beliefs resulted in a number of schisms of the church Joseph had established.

    Sidney was one of these men, and when his bid to replace Joseph was rejected by the Saints, he went back to Pennsylvania and presided, as president and prophet, over an already existing group of Saints. This group, which believed Joseph was, indeed, a prophet who had established God's true church on earth, practiced the gospel under Rigdon's leadership almost identical to how Joseph had practiced it, with the huge exception of polygamy. It became a schism when it disavowed polygamy and changed its name to disassociate itself from the other Mormon groups, particularly the "Brighamites," whose practice of polygamy was firm evidence that Brigham was under the control of Satan. I don't recall what the schism's new name was, but it exists today as "The Church of Jesus Christ" (TJOJC), and has grown to become the third largest LDS Restorationist Church.

    So, Sidney and Phoebe Rigdon died outside the schism led by Brigham Young; however, they died within the schism led by Rigdon, a schism that believed it was, literally, a continuation of the one and true church Joseph had established, and that firmly believed Mormons who chose to go to a different schism, including that of the "Brighamites," were the true apostates.

    Did they “endure to the end”?

    As far as members of TCOJC are concerned, yes, they did. Otherwise, I have no idea.

  10. Bidamon is in great part responsible for why we no longer have most of the papyri that Joseph Smith originally had in his possession. He parceled them out to various individuals rather than keeping it all together.

    No, he did not.

    According to the Maxwell Institute article A Guide to the Joseph Smith Papyri:

    On 26 May 1856, less than two weeks after Mother Smith died, Emma Smith (Joseph's widow), her second husband, Lewis C. Bidamon, and her son, Joseph Smith III, sold the mummies and the papyri to Abel Combs.9

    Abel Combs split up the papyri. Some he sold to the St. Louis Museum, including at least two of the rolls and at least two of the mummies; some of the mounted fragments he kept.

    Perhaps you are thinking of The Book of Mormon manuscript, which had been placed by Joseph in one of the cornerstones of the Nauvoo Mansion. Years later Bidamon was doing some work on the mansion and came upon the manuscript. Visitors who had ties to Mormonism, including Assistant Church Historian Franklin D. Richards, asked to see the papers, and Bidamon would often give a few pages to them as a sort of souvenir. While it is tragic a document of such historical value wasn't kept together and taken care of properly, it certainly was not done maliciously, and in fact, appears to have been a kind gesture.

  11. That being said she was/is responsible for the choices she made in marrying someone antagonistic to Joseph as Prophet, promoting her son as Prophet.

    See http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Emma_Smith

    Your claim that Bidamon was antagonistic to Joseph is simply not true, and in fact, makes no sense.

    Your Wiki link about Emma does not mention Bidamon's feelings for Joseph, whatsoever, so I'm not sure why you posted it. However, the Lewis Bidamon Wiki article states:

    Bidamon was not a Latter Day Saint; he believed that Joseph Smith was an honest man but that Smith had somehow been deceived into believing he was a prophet.

    Thinking someone honest but misguided does not rise to the level of "antagonistic."

    In addition, Bidamon's Wiki reference states:

    In 1846, just as the Latter Day Saints were beginning to depart Nauvoo, Illinois, Bidamon moved to Nauvoo. He was a lieutenant colonel of the 32nd Regiment of the Illinois militia, and he helped control the violence being perpetuated against the Latter Day Saints.

    This is why your comment makes no sense. If Bidamon had truly been antagonistic towards Joseph, he could have easily opted to side with the mob whose antagonism for Joseph was abundant. But he chose to align with those helping the Mormons. It's highly unlikely someone antagonistic toward Joseph would have done so.

  12. Okay. However, who are you proposing to effect and make the changes to the non-doctrinal/theological church policies and procedures? If you think the general membership should effect the change, and then the Church leadership is to make the changes, then you have essentially described a bottom-up structure.

    . . . .

    Thanks, -Wade Englund-

    FIFY.
  13. Do you know the case of David Irving, the historian? It seems that he has been personally attacked for years for his writing and statements. And his critics have done this to show that his historical research is clouded by his outside statements and speaking engagements. These attacks of individuals are not that uncommon in the academic world.

    And lately, there has been many personal attacks against Bill Ayers, an academic who specializes in education for his involvement with the weather underground and his relationship with the President. He resurfaced because of his contact with Obama. I have seen no protests from the academic community in either case.

    It seems perfectly okay in the academic world.

    Then MI should stop insisting it does not use ad hominem arguments. It does. Often.

  14. As long ago as 1994, in his essay “Text and Context,“ DCP insisted there were times when it was legitimate to use ad hominem arguments. Clearly, this was tacit acknowledgement that FARMS had done so in its then-past, (otherwise why defend it?), and it’s been my observation that it continued to do so until the present using DCP's context outlined below. Many times.

    From the essay:

    On Sophistical Refutations

    In December 1993, Gary James Bergera, Signature's director of publishing, announced to readers of the Salt Lake Tribune that "Mr. Peterson continues to insist that character assassination and ad hominem attacks are respected hallmarks of the intellectual enterprise."36 But Mr. Bergera is wrong, and he is equivocating.37 By ad hominem "attacks," he obviously means the use of insulting or abusive language. I do not advocate such rhetorical attacks. However, the classical ad hominem is an argument, and I do believe, along with virtually all logicians, that ad hominem arguments can be legitimate, relevant, and significant—provided their limitations are clearly understood and their conclusions properly weighted. Obviously, they can be abused. But they are by no means invariably fallacious.38

    I will admit that this nuanced view of the subject runs counter to the way many people speak of arguments ad hominem.

    In twentieth-century usage, an ad hominem argument is a device intended to divert attention from the critical examination of the substance of an argument, and to dis credit that argument by dragging in irrelevant considerations having to do with the character or motives of its author. That this is a disreputable procedure is clear enough in cases where the argument itself is "followable": in which those being addressed have the opportunity of addressing themselves systematically and exclusively to "relevant" considerations.39

    The popular view, however, is inadequate. But we must be clear, in order to make sense of this, just what it is we are talking about here: An ad hominem argument is precisely that—an argument. It can be a good or bad argument, valid or invalid, relevant or irrelevant. Insults, on the other hand, while they may in a sense be ad hominem (i.e., "against the man") are not arguments at all, neither of the ad hominem variety nor of any other.

    . . . .

    It must be clearly understood that I am not charging any particular individual, at Signature or anywhere else, with sexual im morality. I have used rather dramatic examples in order to make the case that writers are reflected in what they write. Human beings are not asocial, ahistorical, disembodied intellects. Clearly, considerations of the total personality of the individual advancing a theory, writing a book, or painting a picture may be entirely germane and legitimate in analysis of what that individual produces. Having once established that ad hominem analysis can be relevant, it then becomes merely a question of when and how much it should be used. The degree of relevance will vary, of course, according to the nature of the dispute and, perhaps even more importantly, according to the nature of the subject matter in question. Personal character is of relatively little importance in discussions of physical science and mathematical theory, although even here it must sometimes be taken into account.61 But it can be of great or even central relevance in matters of political thought, ethical speculation, historiography, literature, and theology. As one eminent biblical scholar has observed, "The historian's own presuppositions, ideology, and attitudes inevitably influence his or her research and reporting. Perhaps it is not an overstatement to say that any history book reveals as much about its author as it does about the period of time treated."63 "Good historians (like experts in other fields) have a 'feel' for their subject and can make inspired guesses, without being able to state explicitly how they know."63 Bad historians, in contrast, presumably lack such a "feel" and therefore make analogous guesses that turn out to be uninspired. One of the characteristics of historiography is its "inevitable subjectivity."64 Thus, to portray ad hominem arguments as always and everywhere inevitably fallacious is, in itself, a gross logical error. While, of itself, ad hominem analysis cannot be used to discredit a writer's argument or evidence, it can certainly alert us to cases where caution should be exercised, to instances where we should be especially alert. Peter Novick explains this well:

    The impersonal ethos of science is based on the proposition that what science offers is "public knowledge," subject to critical examination by the scientific community. The "replicable experiment" is the prime example of this characteristic of science. . . . The assimilation of historical knowledge to this model was . . . a key move in the establishment of objective, scientific history. On this assumption, ad hominem arguments are surely an irrelevancy, and should be scornfully dismissed.

    But are the characteristic products of historians like this? The historian has seen, at first hand, a great mass of evidence, often unpublished, and difficult of access. The historian develops an interpretation of this evidence based on years of immersion in the material—together, of course, with the perceptual apparatus and assumptions he or she brings to it. Historians employ devices, the footnote being the most obvious example, to attain for their work something resembling "replicability," but the resemblance is not all that close.

    Most historical writing is, at best, "semipublic." . . . The historian is less like the author of a logical demonstration, though he or she is that in part; more like a witness to what has been found on a voyage of discovery. And arguments which are illegitimate when addressed to the author of a transparently followable syllogism are quite appropriate in the case of a witness.

×
×
  • Create New...