juliann

When that article was written, it was a battle. And they were losing, as evidenced by the disappearance of rabid Evangelicals who stalked us on every LDS site created. (Rabid EVs are a breed unto themselves, not reflective of the entire group.) Mosser and Owen used to post on the old FAIR board. Mosser tended more toward the caricaturing of Mormonism than Owen....who eventually converted to an Orthodox religion. It wasn't so fun for them when we started critiquing their beliefs...and it was very easy to do, even using their own scholars.

As I understand it, the church is not suing over the name “Mormon.” Dehlin just wants people to think that. This is trademark stuff and he was dumb enough to not even add any modifications. It couldn’t be more blatant. The Tanners helpfully established case law that protected parody of trademark when the unsuccessfully sued FAIR for a parody site. But without parody, this analysis of the lawsuit points out where John is dangling in the wind on this one when it comes to trademark. http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case616.cfm

What did that have to do with the victims?? Do you mean this? Do you think victims do not need to cope? Is that what offends you? Hopefully, you don't think we should not address ugly consequences of sin.

If he wanted people to know what the church is asking for he would read the complaint, as was posted here. He’s an idiot to publicly ramble on during a high stakes lawsuit.

I think the most responsible answer to JS’s instigation of plural marriage is nobody knows. Getting it from the Bible is hardly an explanation. What saved the church from going under like almost all New Religions was Danish/English immigration. What in the world would polygamy have done. It was likely the reason JS was killed. That’s just goofy. We seem to be replicating a coming of age when it comes to polygamy just as we have with the priesthood ban. Members are now openly assigning it to racism rather than God. Polygamy has also been damaging to the church. There is nothing good about it and the rationales for it are ridiculous and frivolous.

As far as I am award, these recollections were not "early." They were later. No one but JS was a participant or witness of this claim. You are trying to turn hearsay into first person testimony. The likely reason it isn't "emphasized" by modern scholarship is because it didn't come from JS himself and there are no contemporaneous accounts. This might be true...but it also might fall into the seagulls and crickets category of history.

Reel doesn't have the expertise to destroy anything. If he did, the church would be dead by now. That aside, the value of Stone is in her punching a few holes in the standard scholarly narrative. She pays attention to some things that they don't and it needs to be addressed. I've only looked into her stuff once and immediately saw this in at least one instance (which I no longer recall.) I'm unconcerned with how right or wrong she is, however, I will never dismiss the women's statements from JS's wives. But I'm also skeptical of the polygamy advocacy of the more vocal researchers that have shaped the narrative. I will never be able to take them seriously until they stop denying polyandry....just as she denies polygyny. They are no different in that sense.