Apologetic Websites Vs Anti-Mormon Websites

[Calm]

Avoiding snark can sometimes be very difficult. I'll give an example in the book review thread I started.

It helps to get as many people as you can reading the stuff, especially someone with no sense of humour

[Ahab]

I totally agree. When I write something, "snark" sometimes sneaks in. That is why it is always good to get others to review one's work.

Or to just accept a bit of snark as being okay. I've gottten to the point where snark doesn't bother me anymore, although there is both good snark and bad snark and I don't like the bad snark as much as I like the good snark. Some people have a way of being snarky that I think is worthy of emulation. I'm still trying to develop and improve my skills at being snarky, myself. Edited June 14, 2013 by Ahab

[tagriffy]

Or to just accept a bit of snark as being okay. I've gottten to the point where snark doesn't bother me anymore, although there is both good snark and bad snark and I don't like the bad snark as much as I like the good snark. Some people have a way of being snarky that I think is worthy of emulation. I'm still trying to develop and improve my skills at being snarky, myself.

I had this friend in school who was a master of snark. I recently reestablished contact with him via Facebook. I was very pleased to see he had not lost his gift.

However, in scholarship, even "good" snark can be used to focus a critique in the wrong fashion.

[Ahab]

I had this friend in school who was a master of snark. I recently reestablished contact with him via Facebook. I was very pleased to see he had not lost his gift.

However, in scholarship, even "good" snark can be used to focus a critique in the wrong fashion.

Of course. Something good is offen used to make something bad, but it's still good without all the bad stuff around it.

[Wiki Wonka]

I had this friend in school who was a master of snark. I recently reestablished contact with him via Facebook. I was very pleased to see he had not lost his gift.

However, in scholarship, even "good" snark can be used to focus a critique in the wrong fashion.

I can do exceptionally good snark. I have to suppress my natural tendency to do so when I write something.

WW

[Wiki Wonka]

I can do exceptionally good snark. I have to suppress my natural tendency to do so when I write something.

ETA: OK, I didn't quite succeed with my avatar...

WW

Edited June 15, 2013 by Wiki Wonka

[tagriffy]

I can do exceptionally good snark. I have to suppress my natural tendency to do so when I write something.

ETA: OK, I didn't quite succeed with my avatar...

WW

Avatars are made for snark. My tendency is more towards sarcasm, which I also often have to suppress.

[Thinking]

By seeking out feedback and correcting our mistakes, even if it is a critic that pointed our mistakes out.

OK, here’s one.

I decided to look on FAIR to see if there was anything about Zina and Henry (since it’s been a popular topic recently). The first article in the list was Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young by Allen L. Wyatt.

Wyatt criticizes Fawn Brodie for making an a priori assumption. “Brodie bases her conclusions on inferences that she views as consistent with what, in her mind, must have been. In other words, Brodie cannot conceive of how Henry could possibly have known of and allowed the sealing, so she infers from the later statements of others that he must not have known. Such a priori assumptions are shaky, and later authors have come to the opposite conclusion–that Henry must have known given his intimacy with the Prophet.”

Yet just a few paragraphs earlier, Wyatt makes his own a priori assumption about Joseph Smith. “Joseph obviously felt that it was permissible to marry an already married woman, else he would not have been sealed to Zina.”

I also wonder about Wyatt’s choice of words when describing Zina’s relationship to Joseph and Brigham.

“Why Zina chose to be sealed to Joseph Smith has been a vexing puzzle to many individuals.”

“Further, when Zina was given the choice of which of the Twelve she would marry in Joseph’s stead, she chose Brigham. While such a choice may be anathema to modern observers, it is apparently a choice made by Zina, accepted by Brigham, and approved by Henry.”

“This seemed, to those predisposed to distrust a hostile government, a practical and pragmatic solution to ending a marriage, and appears to be the path chosen by Henry and Zina.”

“Zina, however, was not an object, and neither were her children. Zina certainly had a choice in her marriages, and she showed on more than one occasion that she was willing and capable of exercising that choice. The fact that she chose to be married to Brigham in Nauvoo, chose to move into his housing in Winter Quarters, chose to not live with Henry in Winter Quarters after his mission, chose to go to Salt Lake and live in Brigham’s housing there, and finally to live publicly as Brigham’s plural wife all indicate that Zina played an active part in the dissolution of her marriage to Henry and the establishment of her marriage to Brigham.”

When given a real choice, she chose Henry. But then, "Sometime after Henry and Zina were married, Joseph told Dimick Huntington, Zina’s brother, the story of why he was compelled to introduce plural marriage, and asked that Dimick tell the story to Zina. As Zina is quoted by one author to have said, 'Tell Zina I have put it off and put it off until an angel with a drawn sword has stood before me and told me if I did not establish that principle [plurality of wives] and live it, I would lose my position and my life and the Church could progress no further.' Sometime after Zina heard this story and almost eight months after being married to Henry, Zina was sealed to Joseph Smith. The ordinance was performed by Dimick on October 27, 1841, on the banks of the Mississippi River. This event marks a major change in Zina’s behavior, as she had previously turned down Joseph’s proposals."

In the introduction, Wyatt wrote, "As shall be seen, nothing is ever as simple or as black and white as critics like to presume." Then he proceeds to try to convince the reader that it was Zina (and Henry) who chose this path. We all know it wasn't that simple.

Edited June 15, 2013 by Thinking

[Wiki Wonka]

OK, here’s one.

I decided to look on FAIR to see if there was anything about Zina and Henry (since it’s been a popular topic recently). The first article in the list was Zina and Her Men: An Examination of the Changing Marital State of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith Young by Allen L. Wyatt.

Wyatt criticizes Fawn Brodie for making an a priori assumption. “Brodie bases her conclusions on inferences that she views as consistent with what, in her mind, must have been. In other words, Brodie cannot conceive of how Henry could possibly have known of and allowed the sealing, so she infers from the later statements of others that he must not have known. Such a priori assumptions are shaky, and later authors have come to the opposite conclusion–that Henry must have known given his intimacy with the Prophet.”

Yet just a few paragraphs earlier, Wyatt makes his own a priori assumption about Joseph Smith. “Joseph obviously felt that it was permissible to marry an already married woman, else he would not have been sealed to Zina.”

I also wonder about Wyatt’s choice of words when describing Zina’s relationship to Joseph and Brigham.

“Why Zina chose to be sealed to Joseph Smith has been a vexing puzzle to many individuals.”

“Further, when Zina was given the choice of which of the Twelve she would marry in Joseph’s stead, she chose Brigham. While such a choice may be anathema to modern observers, it is apparently a choice made by Zina, accepted by Brigham, and approved by Henry.”

“This seemed, to those predisposed to distrust a hostile government, a practical and pragmatic solution to ending a marriage, and appears to be the path chosen by Henry and Zina.”

“Zina, however, was not an object, and neither were her children. Zina certainly had a choice in her marriages, and she showed on more than one occasion that she was willing and capable of exercising that choice. The fact that she chose to be married to Brigham in Nauvoo, chose to move into his housing in Winter Quarters, chose to not live with Henry in Winter Quarters after his mission, chose to go to Salt Lake and live in Brigham’s housing there, and finally to live publicly as Brigham’s plural wife all indicate that Zina played an active part in the dissolution of her marriage to Henry and the establishment of her marriage to Brigham.”

When given a real choice, she chose Henry. "Sometime after Henry and Zina were married, Joseph told Dimick Huntington, Zina’s brother, the story of why he was compelled to introduce plural marriage, and asked that Dimick tell the story to Zina. As Zina is quoted by one author to have said, “Tell Zina I have put it off and put it off until an angel with a drawn sword has stood before me and told me if I did not establish that principle [plurality of wives] and live it, I would lose my position and my life and the Church could progress no further.”

Sometime after Zina heard this story and almost eight months after being married to Henry, Zina was sealed to Joseph Smith. The ordinance was performed by Dimick on October 27, 1841, on the banks of the Mississippi River. This event marks a major change in Zina’s behavior, as she had previously turned down Joseph’s proposals."

In the introduction, Wyatt wrote, "As shall be seen, nothing is ever as simple or as black and white as critics like to presume." Then he proceeds to try to convince the reader that it was Zina (and Henry) who chose this path. We all know it wasn't that simple.

Allen actually posts here, so he might pick up on this and respond to it if he sees it.

On a general note regarding correcting things, it is very easy for me to make changes in the FAIR Wiki, since it is a collaborative effort and the articles do not contain bylines. I routinely make corrections based upon critical feedback in the wiki. I don't have to consult with the author of the article, because it is a group effort.

With authored articles, it is a bit different, since it requires asking the author to review or revise his own work. If an error were pointed out in an article that I authored (that carried my name and had been published), I would either seek to correct it in the publication if that were still possible (such was the case in an article that I very recently had published), or I would have to write an additional article clarifying the first one.

WW

[Deborah]

I am definitely very biased when I talk about the church but given the hostility I find in critic's comments how can you be otherwise? It's really hard to find common ground for discussion when they from the get-go are attacking and calling you ignorant and unenlightened.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

If you would like to know the difference...Tone.

[Mudcat]

I am thinking if we shut down all the web sites that were situated with the idea of defending their beliefs and were also not perfect websites. Then we just wouldn't have any.

That's not saying we shouldn't work to get the flies out of our respective soup pots.. Just never seen a pot that didn't have some flies in it.

Edited June 16, 2013 by Mudcat