One Nation Under Gods

[Bernard Gui]

In another thread, I brought up a problem with a footnote in Abanes' One Nation Under God

in the chapter titled Unholy Matrimony.

Mr. Abanes did not answer the question, but that's ok.

However, something about that part of the chapter just didn't seem right, so I'm checking

other parts of the text and footnotes, especially the quote of Heber C. Kimball

about the young missionaries hogging all the pretty girls they convert.

In the meantime, perhaps someone can explain this curiosity:

The Changing World of Mormonism

Gerald and Sandra Tanner

(Web edition)

http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changecontents.htm

Chapter 9 Part 2 Sorrows of Polygamy, page 226

"The fact that plural marriage brought great sorrow to many of the women involved can hardly be denied. Heber C. Kimball once remarked: 'There is a great deal of quarrelling in the houses, and contending for power and authority; and the second wife is against the first wife, perhaps, in some instances' (Journal of Discourses, vol. 4, p.178)."

[kamenraider]

What do you want explained? I checked the reference and it's correct. In context though Heber C. Kimball goes on to say say, after the last sentence of the quote:

But that is done away in my family, and there is none of it in brother Brigham's, nor in brother Wells', nor in any family where they have common sense.

edit: Oh I get it. You're pointing out that Abanes apparently plagiarized the Tanners. It wouldn't surprise me. You can tell that he depended heavily on them. I read ONUG recently and thought about doing some threads about some things that were way wrong in it but never got around to it. One thing I checked out was about Deseret Currency being debased by a significant percentage and Abanes accusing Church leaders of doing it on purpose. I found out though that that wasn't too unusual for coinage to be debased like that and that it was probably just due to their being amateurs at minting money -- in other words they made the original sizes and weights of the coins using pure gold but then the gold that was used to make later coins was refined more crudely and therefore the coins were slightly debased. If you think about it, they'd have to be really stupid to purposely circulate debased coinage with "pure gold" and "Holiness to the Lord" written on it. LOL

[cdowis]

In the Humphrey Bogart movie "Sahara" someone said, "There needs to be at least four wives. Two and they contend with each, three and two become friends and go against the third, four and you have peace." (quoting from memory)

Anyway, it may take several generations before the structures are in place to handle polygamous marriages in a harmonious manner. For example, which is better -- separate houses or one house. Division of labor, multiple sets of inlaws, sister wives (no physical intimacy) vs "real" wifes, etc. Polygamy was not around long enough to work out these issues.

[Stargazer]

What do you want explained? I checked the reference and it's correct. In context though Heber C. Kimball goes on to say say, after the last sentence of the quote:

I think he's noting that Abanes used the Tanner passage verbatim without attribution -- plagiarism, in other words. Unless he's saying the Tanners did the plagiarizing. I don't happen to know which work came first.

[MormonMason]

I think he's noting that Abanes used the Tanner passage verbatim without attribution -- plagiarism, in other words. Unless he's saying the Tanners did the plagiarizing. I don't happen to know which work came first.

The Tanners' work cited above came first. You will find that a great many critics and anti-Mormons plagiarize the Tanners' work. Of course, the Tanners knew this about various anti-Mormons such as Ed Decker, and said it was alright to do it, which is the reason why they claim that they do not copyright their work.

[rabanes]

etc.....

YES!!!!! Awesome. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Good find. I have that marked now, and should I be given the oportunity I'll fix it.

Stuff like this is found all the time in hefty tomes. That portion of the endnote should indeed be in quotes, followed by attribution .... (see Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, p. 226). I probably copied this JOD phrase, plus the accompanying lead sentence to save time typing, then I checked the Heber quote with my own JOD set. That's why our credits for HCK are actually different. Mine is more complete --

Me:

Heber C. Kimball, January 11, 1857,

JOD

, vol. 4, 178.

Tanner:

Journal of Discourses

, vol. 4, p.178.

As for the lead intro sentence, I would sometimes keep a line or two that Sandra or someone else stated because I thought it was interesting, relevant, or well-said. But I always gave credit. I am SURE, however, that in a book of nearly 200,000 I certainly slipped up here and there. I would expect that since last I checked, I am still human. And this is clearly one of those places. So, cool. I owe you one. That's awesome.

I don't need to plagiarize from Sandra Tanner or anyone. I have plenty to say and plenty of ways to say what I need to say. LoL. Sandra is a good friend, BTW. She wrote the foreword to the book, for goodness sake, and received the complete manuscript endnotes and all for review -- and SHE didn't even catch it. LoL. Good one.

Anyway, thanks again!!!!

R.A.

P.S. BTW, there are some rather rstrict guidlelines for making the charge of plagiarism, and I would suggest that people understand the charge before leveling it at someone. This is an editorial burp that I FULLY accept responsibility for. Would you like me to call Sandra and tell her about it??? Better yet, you can call her yourself and tell her I said, "hello."

[Bernard Gui]

What do you want explained? I checked the reference and it's correct. In context though Heber C. Kimball goes on to say say, after the last sentence of the quote:

I already pointed out his failure to put his quote in context.

edit: Oh I get it. You're pointing out that Abanes apparently plagiarized the Tanners. It wouldn't surprise me. You can tell that he depended heavily on them. I read ONUG recently and thought about doing some threads about some things that were way wrong in it but never got around to it.

I'm not saying plagiarized. I'm just curious how this could have happened.

Bernard

[rabanes]

I'm not saying plagiarized. I'm just curious how this could have happened.

Answered in Post #6. I hope it helps

RA

[Bernard Gui]

YES!!!!! Awesome. Thank you Thank you Thank you. Good find. I have that marked now, and should I be given the oportunity I'll fix it.

Always like to be of service. I wish you were as eager to fix other worse errors.

Stuff like this is found all the time in hefty tomes. That portion of the endnote should indeed be in quotes, followed by attribution .... (see Jerald and Sandra Tanner, The Changing World of Mormonism, p. 226). I probably copied this JOD phrase, plus the accompanying lead sentence to save time typing, then I checked the Heber quote with my own JOD set. That's why our credits for HCK are actually different. Mine is more complete --

Did you actually read the Kimball discourse, or did you take the Tanners' word for it? If you read it yourself, why

did you omit the ameliorative portion?

P.S. BTW, there are some rather rstrict guidlelines for making the charge of plagiarism, and I would suggest that people understand the charge before leveling it at someone. This is an editorial burp that I FULLY accept responsibility for. Would you like me to call Sandra and tell her about it??? Better yet, you can call her yourself and tell her I said, "hello."

No thanks. You should call her. It's not something I really would like to do.

Bernard

[rabanes]

ameliorative point

First, AWESOME word. Absolutely AWESOME. I tip my hate on that one.

Second, I had my own set of JOD that I often read at length. Sadly, but necessarily, I have since sold it (more proof that I'm actually moving on and that Mormonism is NOT my stock-n-trade).

THIS STATEMENT:

"But that is done away in my family, and there is none of it in brother Brigham's, nor in brother Wells', nor in any family where they have common sense."

does not ameliorate

THIS STATEMENT:

"There is a great deal of quarrelling in the houses, and contending for power and authority; and the second wife is against the first wife, perhaps, in some instances"

The former statement only indicates that such was not the case in: 1) three families (Kimball's Young's, Wells'); and 2) an unspecified number of families where "they have common sense."

How many household's had common sense? Given my readings about polygamy, not many. I didn't find Kimball's cast off qualifier worthy of dismissing the primary point raised by Tanner, a point with which I agreed -- i.e., heartbreak and anguish existed in many households due to polygamy. This seems to be very well documented throughout many sources.

RA

[Bernard Gui]

First, AWESOME word. Absolutely AWESOME. I tip my hate on that one.

I trust you will give me the credit if you use it.

Second, I had my own set of JOD that I often read at length. Sadly, but necessarily, I have since sold it (more proof that I'm actually moving on and that Mormonism is NOT my stock-n-trade).

It's available on-line, which makes it so much easier to check your footnotes.

THIS STATEMENT:

"But that is done away in my family, and there is none of it in brother Brigham's, nor in brother Wells', nor in any family where they have common sense."

does not ameliorate

THIS STATEMENT:

"There is a great deal of quarrelling in the houses, and contending for power and authority; and the second wife is against the first wife, perhaps, in some instances"

The former statement only indicates that such was not the case in: 1) three families (Kimball's Young's, Wells'); and 2) an unspecified number of families where "they have common sense."

Actually, it does. You used this statement as though Kimball were supporting your point, when in truth his words contradict

your point.

How many household's had common sense? Given my readings about polygamy, not many. I didn't find Kimball's cast off qualifier worthy of dismissing the primary point raised by Tanner, a point with which I agreed -- i.e., heartbreak and anguish existed in many households due to polygamy. This seems to be very well documented throughout many sources.

Life on the frontier was not pleasant for most women and men, married, unmarried, polygamous or whatever. Yet many plural marriages thrived. If you consider the whole of Kimball's life, you would not make such a cavalier remark that his

was a cast-off qualifier. In any case, yours was a blatant misuse of the quote.

Bernard

[rabanes]

In any case, yours was a blatant misuse of the quote.

You waste my time. I was not a blatant misuse. I explained the nuances of the statement and why one aspect of it doesn't utterly cancel out the other part of it. You don't care to listen. That's fine. You have the truth in your hands. I wish you the best. You'll be held accountable.

RA

[MormonMason]

Keep reading, Bernard. You will find far worse than the above.

[kamenraider]

What do you have to say about the Deseret Currency thing I mentioned, Mr. Abanes?

[Stargazer]

This is completely off-topic, but I have been wanting to say this for some time, and that is: rabanes has the most marvelous avatar. The Ponderous Monstrous Teddy-Bear. Heavy, man. And the picture shakes at each footfall. I'm sure this is intended to be terrifically symbolic or something. The only other avatar to catch my fancy so much was Tzuzuki's old one, the one with the stick fiqure quarterstaff wielder who single-staffedly beat off an entire circle of attackers. That's one I greatly admired and wish I had thought of getting a copy of before he changed it.

Eh.

[Tsuzuki]

The only other avatar to catch my fancy so much was Tzuzuki's old one, the one with the stick fiqure quarterstaff wielder who single-staffedly beat off an entire circle of attackers. That's one I greatly admired and wish I had thought of getting a copy of before he changed it.

[mrmendoza]

First, AWESOME word. Absolutely AWESOME. I tip my hate on that one.

Second, I had my own set of JOD that I often read at length. Sadly, but necessarily, I have since sold it (more proof that I'm actually moving on and that Mormonism is NOT my stock-n-trade).

THIS STATEMENT:

"But that is done away in my family, and there is none of it in brother Brigham's, nor in brother Wells', nor in any family where they have common sense."

does not ameliorate

THIS STATEMENT:

"There is a great deal of quarrelling in the houses, and contending for power and authority; and the second wife is against the first wife, perhaps, in some instances"

The former statement only indicates that such was not the case in: 1) three families (Kimball's Young's, Wells'); and 2) an unspecified number of families where "they have common sense."

How many household's had common sense? Given my readings about polygamy, not many. I didn't find Kimball's cast off qualifier worthy of dismissing the primary point raised by Tanner, a point with which I agreed -- i.e., heartbreak and anguish existed in many households due to polygamy. This seems to be very well documented throughout many sources.

RA

You known the same question can be asked today about monogamis marrages (it's too early in the morning to expect me to be able to spell corectly) ! How many households today have common sense?

There's no question thay polygamy was difficult, even in the best of households. The fact that any of them seemed to do well was a testiment to the courage and conviction of the people at that time.

Did they all go smooth? Of course not! But with a 50% divorce rate in the country today, with it's subsequint "heartbreak and anguish," I don't see how you can single polygamy out as being any worse! Especially given the number of succesful polygamis househoulds there were at the time, and under the circumstances of the day!

Gotta go for now, will try to get back later.

Mike

[Lachoneus]

First, AWESOME word. Absolutely AWESOME. I tip my hate on that one.

Second, I had my own set of JOD that I often read at length. Sadly, but necessarily, I have since sold it (more proof that I'm actually moving on and that Mormonism is NOT my stock-n-trade).

THIS STATEMENT:

"But that is done away in my family, and there is none of it in brother Brigham's, nor in brother Wells', nor in any family where they have common sense."

does not ameliorate

THIS STATEMENT:

"There is a great deal of quarrelling in the houses, and contending for power and authority; and the second wife is against the first wife, perhaps, in some instances"

The former statement only indicates that such was not the case in: 1) three families (Kimball's Young's, Wells'); and 2) an unspecified number of families where "they have common sense."

How many household's had common sense?

How many homes experienced quarreling and contending for power and authority with the second wife against the first? It would also appear to be "an unspecified number." The point of Kimball's statement is that those homes in which people have common sense are able to work out the complexities of polygyny. Only those homes in which common sense is lacking experience the problems Kimball mentions. Kimball makes no statement as to which group is larger than the other. To use Kimball's statement to establish only that there were homes in which quarreling existed while omitting the following sentence showing that there were also homes in which no quarreling existed is not an honest use of Kimball's words and thoughts.

Given my readings about polygamy, not many.

Then maybe you should quote some of that other reading and not try to rely on Kimball's statement to establish your point.

I didn't find Kimball's cast off qualifier worthy of dismissing the primary point raised by Tanner, a point with which I agreed -- i.e., heartbreak and anguish existed in many households due to polygamy. This seems to be very well documented throughout many sources.

So, you do find Kimball's statement worthy of establishing that many homes experienced difficulties with polygyny, but unworthy of being quoted in full to show that this admission applies only to families that lack common sense? Instead of including Kimball's ameliorative statement, you completely dismiss it as a "cast off?" Astounding cherry picking! A gross misuse of Kimball's words.

You waste my time. I was not a blatant misuse.

I know who is wasting my time, and it is not Bernard.

I explained the nuances of the statement and why one aspect of it doesn't utterly cancel out the other part of it. You don't care to listen. That's fine. You have the truth in your hands.

You find ameliorate to be an "AWESOME word," but did not bother to look up what it means? Ameliorate has nothing to do with "utterly cancel[ing] out" anything. It means only "to make or become better, more bearable, or more satisfactory; improve; meliorate." It is more than obvious that the omitted sentence more fully explains Kimball's point and thus makes the first sentence better or more understandable. It improves or meliorates what is said in the first sentence. To omit it is truly an example of one who does not care to listen and who already has the truth in their hands.

I wish you the best. You'll be held accountable.

As will you.

[Jan]

This is an editorial burp that I FULLY accept responsibility for.

You said it.

ONUG: burp.....burp....fart.......fart......barf....

:0

P.S.

Hi, Richard.

[rabanes]

Jan is that you?????? Hello!!!! I hope all is very very well with you and your family.

RA

[rabanes]

You find ameliorate to be an "AWESOME word," but did not bother to look up what it means? Ameliorate has nothing to do with "utterly cancel[ing] out" anything. It means only "to make or become better, more bearable, or more satisfactory; improve; meliorate." It is more than obvious that the omitted sentence more fully explains Kimball's point and thus makes the first sentence better or more understandable. It improves or meliorates what is said in the first sentence. To omit it is truly an example of one who does not care to listen and who already has the truth in their hands.

1. I know what ameliorate means.

2. For all practical purposes, what it ultimately ends up meaning (when used as Bernard used it) is that polygamy was/is just fine, hence, effectiively canceling out the horrors of polygamy that Kimball begrudgingly touched upon -- because, well, someone had to bring it up and say sometihng to address the problem (read what was going on back then).

3. Go read more from the others side about how difficult, painful, humiliating, degrading, and perverted polygamy was. I'll not give links or resouces. They're available and fairly easy to find if you care to look. I'll leave that up to you.

RA

[William the Conqueror]

1. I know what ameliorate means.

2. For all practical purposes, what it ultimately ends up meaning (when used as Bernard used it) is that polygamy was/is just fine, hence, effectiively canceling out the horrors of polygamy that Kimball begrudgingly touched upon -- because, well, someone had to bring it up and say sometihng to address the problem (read what was going on back then).

3. Go read more from the others side about how difficult, painful, humiliating, degrading, and perverted polygamy was. I'll not give links or resouces. They're available and fairly easy to find if you care to look. I'll leave that up to you.

RA

Go read more from the others side about how difficult, painful, humiliating, degrading, and perverted polygamy was. I'll not give links or resouces. They're available and fairly easy to find if you care to look. I'll leave that up to you.

Well now Richard,

My Mormon coworker told me Polygamy has been suspended for now but could be reinstated sometime in the future when it is appropriate. What do you think?

[juliann]

3. Go read more from the others side about how difficult, painful, humiliating, degrading, and perverted polygamy was. I'll not give links or resouces. They're available and fairly easy to find if you care to look.

Yes, any translation of the Bible will do.

[rabanes]

Yes, any translation of the Bible will do.

So are you agreeing? If so, EXACTLY RIGHT! Just as I have always maintained, and just as any pastor/teacher I know has always asserted.

The big difference, of course, is that evangelicals consider polygamy an unbiblical compromise that drew men into actions inconsistent with God's will. and that their actions were in line with the ungodly world of the Ancient Near East. Mormons, on the other hand, claim that polygamy was not only sanctioned, but commanded by God. Big difference, as I'm sure you can see.

Now, back to our other conversation, which was locked in the previous thread. You made an accusation -- i.e., that Carl Moser and Paul Owen have slammed ONUG and Inside Today's Mormonism. Now, prove it. Otherwise, please retract your charge and apologize.

Ty, Juliann.

[ttribe]

So are you agreeing? If so, EXACTLY RIGHT! Just as I have always maintained, and just as any pastor/teacher I know has always asserted.

The big difference, of course, is that evangelicals consider polygamy an unbiblical compromise that drew men into actions inconsistent with God's will. and that their actions were in line with the ungodly world of the Ancient Near East. Mormons, on the other hand, claim that polygamy was not only sanctioned, but commanded by God. Big difference, as I'm sure you can see.

Now, back to our other conversation, which was locked in the previous thread. You made an accusation -- i.e., that Carl Moser and Paul Owen have slammed ONUG and Inside Today's Mormonism. Now, prove it. Otherwise, please retract your charge and apologize.

Ty, Juliann.

While you're around, you can retract your editorializing of one my quotes without proper notification of that fact in that "previous" thread.