Jump to content

webbles

Members
  • Content Count

    688
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

635 Excellent

About webbles

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Maybe it is a terminology issue. When I hear "the norm", that tells me it is something that happens fairly often, such as "it is the norm to have hot chocolate in the winter". But when I hear "normal", that tells me it is something that people won't "get their panties in a twist", such as "it is normal to eat ice cream in the winter". So, marrying young wasn't "the norm", but it was "normal". Polygamy, on the other hand, definitely wasn't "the norm" nor was it "normal". So if Joseph's only wife was 14-15 when they were married, it would have been "normal" but it wasn't "the norm". In
  2. Does anyone argue that it was "the norm"? I think the argument is over whether it was "accepted". And an unusual or rare case can still be considered "acceptable". If you look at each of the marriages as a separate marriage, would they have been accepted? It looks like the data from Nevo shows that they would be.
  3. I'd love to find more details about this old case. Supposedly, the church sent a letter to help reduce his probation from 5 years to 3 years. His conviction was for Sodomy III which is a Class C felony (the current text can be found at https://casetext.com/statute/oregon-revised-statutes/title-16-crimes-and-punishments/chapter-163-offenses-against-persons/sexual-offenses/section-163385-sodomy-in-the-third-degree). Looking at the current sentencing guidelines (see https://sentencing.umn.edu/sites/sentencing.umn.edu/files/oregon_sentencing_guidelines_2018.pdf), a Sodomy III charge has a C
  4. What positions in the church actually constitute "leadership positions"? Per the complaint, Kerlee was a Seminary Teacher. Is that a "leadership position"? Per the complaint, Kerlee was a "Sunday School Leader". Now that sounds like a "leadership position" but the church doesn't actually have a position like that. The complaint further clarifies that as an "adult who helps to oversee, administer, or instruct within the LDS Sunday School program". So are all instructors in Sunday School a "leadership position"? Per the complaint, Kerlee was a "youth leader". Again, that soun
  5. I think this is the 2014 license revoking case - https://www.oregon.gov/oblpct/BoardAction/Kerlee.pdf
  6. It looks like it is owned by Yale and they have it available to view online at https://collections.library.yale.edu/catalog/2025934
  7. Of the 8 witnesses, 3 were alive after the deaths of Joseph Smith: Jacob Whitmer, John Whitmer, and Hiram Page. I can't find anything about Jacob Whitmer joining or accepting any other claimant. He stayed back in Missouri and didn't go to Nauvoo and probably stopped accepting Joseph Smith. According to the link from Rajah, Hiram Page sent a letter to Strang and said that he, John, and David Whitmer accepted Strang's claim. But they all joined the Whitmerites (which William McLellan and David Whitmer kind of started) by 1847. So if they did accept Strang, it was only for a year or two. Th
  8. The "Letter of Appointment" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_appointment) is probably the main reason why so many of them accepted Strang. I'd love to see that letter in the Joseph Smith papers. And most of the above listed left Strang before his death. Some only stayed with him for a year or two, but some remained longer. According to wikipedia, the information about Lucy Mack Smith and the other family members might be misleading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Mack_Smith#Succession_crisis. A pamphlet was published by the Strang that she and the other family members acce
  9. I think the problem we are dealing with is that James Strang actually had two different sets of plates and two different sets of witnesses. Your question that I responded to was about the "Voree plates". It looks like Bluebell is talking about the "Laban Plates" The "Voree plates" only has 4 witnesses and I don't think we have any knowledge of what they did after they were witnesses. They only attest to the fact that they dug up the plates in ground that appeared to be untouched. These plates were put on display for thousands to see, though they disappeared sometime around the turn of
  10. The Voree Plate witnesses aren't actually needed. The plates themselves were displayed in a museum and anyone could come and see them. So the existence of the plates aren't in doubt. The only thing that the Voree Plate witnesses attest to besides the plates is that the ground where they found the plates was untouched. So whether they lost the faith or reneged their testimony is kind of pointless since thousands of people saw the plates.
  11. Can you link to the talk? And does he say the technology advancement was for the "advancement of the gospel of Jesus Christ" or for the "mormon church"? Because the former is what I've been taught and heard. The later not so much. God is the one that is blessing us with the technology advancements and He lets everyone use them because they are His children. The technology advancement helps His gospel to be spread around the world and for all to hear of it.
  12. Could you maybe write out some of these possible blind spots? The links you pointed out listed some at a high level: But could you write out more details? The audio doesn't work for me for some reason so I can't listen through it to find out these details. Having them written down in this thread would help immensely in discussing things. What are the suggestions to "keep kids safe" and do they actually help kids or are they just "security theater"? How do bishops fail victims? Does the "LDS church and communities" have unique blind spots that can be solved inside o
  13. The bishop had no need to resign. If he was their doctor, than he could have easily "noticed" the abuse outside of the confessional. He could then have reported it as a doctor and not as a bishop.
  14. The lawsuit is speculating a lot. They currently have no proof that the bishops knew of the horrific abuse. They allege that lots of people knew of the abuse and not a single person acted on it. I have a really hard time believing that out of all the people that supposedly knew, not a single person reported it. The lawsuit is focusing on the priest-penitent privilege because it is an easy scapegoat. Since the bishop can't tell what was actually said there and the perpetrator has died, the lawsuit can allege a lot of things about the conversations and never have to prove it. Personall
  15. The church statement only says "abuse". I don't see the term "child abuse" in there. And even if you assume that "abuse" == "child abuse", it doesn't indicate if it is the abuse that these specific victims were suffering. And I'll go back to my main point. According to the lawsuit, the bishop was also their doctor. If he knew of the abuse as the doctor, then he should absolutely have reported it. If he didn't, he should be sued since that is an open/shut case for breaking the law. But since they aren't suing him for not reporting what he knew as a doctor, then it almost likely means
×
×
  • Create New...