Glenn Beck's Shockingly Absurd Retelling Of Polygamy History...

[wenglund]

Ill start. He did get Warren Jeff's name wrong. 

 

He did talk about how "one of" the reasons for polygamy was lack of men. I did hear this on my mission and was taught that this was one reason for it. Glenn joined the church around 2000 and I ended my mission in 1999. So it is not a stretch to think that it was still taught. It might even be taught now. I am not sure that this reason is invalid either. I know there are better reasons for the practice of polygamy and some have stated that this is folk doctrine which it is not official doctrine, that much I agree with.

 

Not sure about anything else being factually wrong. So if those are the only 2 things he got wrong. With regards to the first one it appears he is mocking, as his tone is silly. The 2nd issue could be chalked up to an honest mistake and I am not even sure it is a mistake. It just is not official doctrine.

 

Oh the horror. I see far worse on this board all the time.

 

I appreciate you stepping up and responding thoughtfully to my request.

 

However, my challenge isn't with people reasonably disagreeing over the reasons behind polygamy, particularly if they allow for uncertain one way or the other, as you did. After all, I don't know that God set forth all his thinking behind his revealed will to his prophets. So, this leaves ample room for broad range of speculations and even educated opinions.

 

If certain participants on this thread had simply said that they disagree with what Glenn said on the matter, and they see things differently, but to each their own, then I would have had no problem with that.

 

What I am challenging is the notion that the issue of the reasons behind polygamy, has been factually settled, and factually settled in such a way as to render Beck's opinion on the matter "shockingly absurd."

 

In short, what I am challenging is uncharitable and unreasonably closed and narrow minds, or dogma. That wouldn't be you.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mormonnewb]

And rehash what has already occupied 7 pages?

I will have to rewatch it, with stops, if you want a blow-by-blow. Unfortunately, that won't be soon as I have to take my wife someplace and I have errands to run. So you patience would be appreciated?

I am sure others will "help a brother out" and fill in the blanks for you- although it is rather strange that Wade Englund would not know of the inaccuracies in Glenn's report.

Don't waste your time. Wade is just playing apologetic "rope-a-dope" here. If you let him, he will make you spend the rest of the month trying to "prove" the most obvious of assertions:

Prove that the media is NOT conflating Jeffs with the larger LDS Church?

[You show 20 hits from recent media reports]

Your sample size is too small

[You give 100 references]

Still too small. There are over 1 million references to Mormons on Google.

[You ask Wade for ONE story showing the conflation.]

No, no, my friend. This isn't how it works. The burden of proof (to prove a negative) is on you.

Unless you are younger than say, 5 years old, you don't have enough remaining life to "punch" your way through the rope-a-dope. Danger, BookofMormonLuvr! Danger!

[wenglund]

Maybe that's what you and I might have inferred but I do not believe a non-member would have concluded that.

 

If so, then whether intended or not, this underscores Beck's point about the media leaving its readers with the impression that there is no distinction between Jeffs and other Mormons, like LDS

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-.

[wenglund]

Don't waste your time. Wade is just playing apologetic "rope-a-dope" here. If you let him, he will make you spend the rest of the month trying to "prove" the most obvious of assertions:

Prove that the media is NOT conflating Jeffs with the larger LDS Church?

[You show 20 hits from recent media reports]

Your sample size is too small

[You give 100 references]

Still too small. There are over 1 million references to Mormons on Google.

[You ask Wade for ONE story showing the conflation.]

No, no, my friend. This isn't how it works. The burden of proof (to prove a negative) is on you.

Unless you are younger than say, 5 years old, you don't have enough remaining life to "punch" your way through the rope-a-dope. Danger, BookofMormonLuvr! Danger!

 

I get that it may be a waste of time in the minds of some people that they back up their sweepingly dismissive statements. These are people who are understandably, and perhaps of necessity, unfettered from the conventions of critical thought and reasoned dialog. Evidently, for them, when they have spoken, that should suffice, in itself, and the thinking is done--as if there were any thinking to begin with.

 

This seems to be the creed for frequently barking dogmatist. So, I am not surprised you, of all people here, would suggest it.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

And to think that I've been accused of going to extreme lengths to get a laugh ... Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that no one in your ward EVER spouts off Mormon folklore. If so, where is this ward -- Adam-ondi-Ahman?

Just a suburban ward in the south part of the Salt Lake Valley.

 

Not within my hearing. And not in any of the meetings or classes I regularly attend. And I'm not just suggesting it, I'm asserting it.

 

Incidentally, I taught the gospel doctrine class for years. And I attend the class today virtually every Sunday.

 

I'm stickler enough that I would be apt to correct or challenge such a thing if I heard it. But I have never had occasion to, either as a teacher or a class member.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I should define terms for Mr. Englund:

"shockingly"- The arrogance and flippant attitude in which he presented the "facts". It is shocking to see one so full of bravado on something he clearly has not looked into very closely.

"absurd"- The "facts" he presented.

 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

What I am challenging is the notion that the issue of the reasons behind polygamy, has been factually settled, and factually settled in such a way as to render Beck's opinion on the matter "shockingly absurd."

 

 

 

 

I doubt very much that you will get anyone beyond me seriously doing what you suggested. Mainly, I think, because they cannot do what you asked of them because they were unfair in their criticisms mainly, due to Glenn and his politics and this article was just a cheap way to bash Glenn.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Don't waste your time. Wade is just playing apologetic "rope-a-dope" here. If you let him, he will make you spend the rest of the month trying to "prove" the most obvious of assertions:

Prove that the media is NOT conflating Jeffs with the larger LDS Church?

[You show 20 hits from recent media reports]

Your sample size is too small

[You give 100 references]

Still too small. There are over 1 million references to Mormons on Google.

[You ask Wade for ONE story showing the conflation.]

No, no, my friend. This isn't how it works. The burden of proof (to prove a negative) is on you.

Unless you are younger than say, 5 years old, you don't have enough remaining life to "punch" your way through the rope-a-dope. Danger, BookofMormonLuvr! Danger!

I am sorry, Wade has never, as far as I know, asked some one to prove a negative.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Instead of wasting my time- these questions should narrow the discussion...

Do Mormon Fundamentalist talk with a backwoods drawl?

Did Warren Jeffs wake up one morning and decide he wanted a "bunch of wives"?

Did Warren Jeffs decide to dress his wives like the "Little House on the Prairie"?

Were most of the men dead when polygamy was instituted?

Did any LDS men die in the War mentioned?

Are you sure the prettiest girls weren't selected for marriage when the arrived in the Deseret territory?

Did it end shortly after the arrival in Utah when the "persecution ended"? Is 40 something years a "short time"?

 

Those are some question off the top of my from what I remember of the video.... I was laughing so hard I probably missed some other gems.

Edited April 21, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I should define terms for Mr. Englund:

"shockingly"- The arrogance and flippant attitude in which he presented the "facts". It is shocking to see one so full of bravado on something he clearly has not looked into very closely.

"absurd"- The "facts" he presented.

 

No one has demonstrated that Glenn has not looked into this. For starters no one has yet to even offer up a point by point post of what was factually wrong.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I doubt very much that you will get anyone beyond me seriously doing what you suggested. Mainly, I think, because they cannot do what you asked of them because they were unfair in their criticisms mainly, due to Glenn and his politics and this article was just a cheap way to bash Glenn.

Actually, I have been a Beck fan and my "politics" are very conservative. He went off the rails on this one though.

[Scott Lloyd]

I should define terms for Mr. Englund:

"shockingly"- The arrogance and flippant attitude in which he presented the "facts". It is shocking to see one so full of bravado on something he clearly has not looked into very closely.

"absurd"- The "facts" he presented.

 

For the record, the rhetoric in the thread title and opening post struck me as overwrought as well.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Actually, I have been a Beck fan and my "politics" are very conservative. He went off the rails on this one though.

Maybe not you specifically but others jumped on and offered very little substance.

 

I even admitted that this was not a very well done piece. If anything the first minuet should have been treated way more serious than it was. The rest of it I really didn't have much issue with it.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Just a couple of points. First, claiming that something is "absurd," let alone "shockingly absurd" is an affirmative assertion, and not a negative.

 

Second, your small sample size of articles is woefully inefficient to substantiate the affirmative claim of absurdity, let alone "shockingly absurd."

 

Third, you gave absolutely no indication of the criteria you used to measure whether the overly small sampling of articles "paint [M]ormons as the same as Jeffs" or not, let alone did or didn't do so in such a way as to render as absurd, or "shockingly absurd" the though of such a comparison. Did any of the article's use general descriptors, such as "Mormon," that might suggest that what is said about Jeff's beliefs may also apply to other Mormons, like LDS?

 

Fourth, ask yourself whether people today still consider LDS to be polygamous, and who do confuse Jeffs with the LDS faith, and if so, then it may be reasonable to investigate where and how they got that impression and whether the "media" played a part in the conflation?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Let's just lay the ground work. We are currently just talking about Glenn's first statement which was:

The media would love nothing more than have Americans believe that anybody who believes what I believe is this guy. What’s his name –Jeffers.

While the words "shockingly absurd" were not mine, in reference to this statement, I think they are an apt description. You said:

 

First, claiming that something is "absurd," let alone "shockingly absurd" is an affirmative assertion, and not a negative.

This is true. It is an affirmative statement. The problem is that this statement is shockingly absurd because I have never in my whole life read, or watched something in the media that conflated all mormons ("anybody who believes what I believe") with Warren Jeffs. Probably half the articles I have looked at specifically mention that the FLDS church (sorry Scott - maybe I should say the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) is a radical offshoot of the mainline church which no longer practices polygamy. Others just mention that he is head of the FLDS church, with no mention of mainstream mormons at all.

That is to say, the statement is "shockingly absurd" because there are no mainstream media sources out there that conflate Warren Jeffs to mainstream Mormons. None. Zero. This is the negative. I can't prove there are none. I and others have asked for you to provide an example of someone somewhere in the media that "would love nothing more than have Americans believe that anybody who believes what I believe is this guy. What’s his name –Jeffers" but you have repeatedly refused to do so.

 

Second, your small sample size of articles is woefully inefficient to substantiate the affirmative claim of absurdity, let alone "shockingly absurd."

As a large consumer of media ever since Warren Jeffs hit the press, I have never seen an article that "would love nothing more than have Americans believe that anybody who believes what I believe is this guy. What’s his name –Jeffers." Have you? If not, then that statement is shockingly absurd.

 

Third, you gave absolutely no indication of the criteria you used to measure whether the overly small sampling of articles "paint [M]ormons as the same as Jeffs" or not, let alone did or didn't do so in such a way as to render as absurd, or "shockingly absurd" the though of such a comparison. Did any of the article's use general descriptors, such as "Mormon," that might suggest that what is said about Jeff's beliefs may also apply to other Mormons, like LDS?

No they did not. They used words like "fundamentalist" mormon and "fundamentalist" LDS church. Half the articles specifically mentioned that they broke away. Even if they did not, it would require an astounding leap of logic to assume that they "would love nothing more than have Americans believe that anybody who believes what I believe is this guy. What’s his name –Jeffers." rather than just making a mistake. It is interesting to me that Beck just made a mistake with the facts around polygamy , but "the media" has a vendetta against Mormons.

 

Fourth, ask yourself whether people today still consider LDS to be polygamous, and who do confuse Jeffs with the LDS faith, and if so, then it may be reasonable to investigate where and how they got that impression and whether the "media" played a part in the conflation?

It might be reasonable to investigate this, but it would be shockingly absurd to state it as fact without evidence. Might it simply be that Mormons and polygamy are associated because polygamy was the most prominent defining feature (to outsiders) of the church for most of its early years?? Edited April 21, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[wenglund]

I should define terms for Mr. Englund:

"shockingly"- The arrogance and flippant attitude in which he presented the "facts". It is shocking to see one so full of bravado on something he clearly has not looked into very closely.

"absurd"- The "facts" he presented.

 

 

You are at liberty to define things and redefine things as idiosyncratically as you wish. However, doing so doesn't diminish the reasonable burden of substantiating your sweepingly dismissive accusations. Sorry--and still waiting.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BookofMormonLuvr]

You are at liberty to define things and redefine things as idiosyncratically as you wish. However, doing so doesn't diminish the reasonable burden of substantiating your sweepingly dismissive accusations. Sorry--and still waiting.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I am free to define "shockingly absurd" because I am the one who made the statement, I know my intent. You do not, you are not at liberty to define what I meant by my words.

So....

Were most of the men dead when polygamy was instituted?

Did it end shortly after arriving in the Deseret Territory, "when the persecution ended"?

[Scott Lloyd]

Let's just lay the ground work. We are currently just talking about Glenn's first statement which was:

While the words "shockingly absurd" were not mine, in reference to this statement, I think they are an apt description. You said:

 

This is true. It is an affirmative statement. The problem is that this statement is shockingly absurd because I have never in my whole life read, or watched something in the media that conflated all mormons ("anybody who believes what I believe") with Warren Jeffs. Probably half the articles I have looked at specifically mention that the FLDS church (sorry Scott - maybe I should say the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) is a radical offshoot of the mainline church which no longer practices polygamy. Others just mention that he is head of the FLDS church, with no mention of mainstream mormons at all.

That is to say, the statement is "shockingly absurd" because there are no mainstream media sources out there that conflate Warren Jeffs to mainstream Mormons. None. Zero. This is the negative. I can't prove there are none. I and others have asked for you to provide an example of someone somewhere in the media that "would love nothing more than have Americans believe that anybody who believes what I believe is this guy. What’s his name –Jeffers" but you have repeatedly refused to do so.

 

As a large consumer of media ever since Warren Jeffs hit the press, I have never seen an article that "would love nothing more than have Americans believe that anybody who believes what I believe is this guy. What’s his name –Jeffers." Have you? If not, then that statement is shockingly absurd.

 

No they did not. They used words like "fundamentalist" mormon and "fundamentalist" LDS church. Half the articles specifically mentioned that they broke away. Even if they did not, it would require an astounding leap of logic to assume that they "would love nothing more than have Americans believe that anybody who believes what I believe is this guy. What’s his name –Jeffers." rather than just making a mistake. It is interesting to me that Beck just made a mistake with the facts around polygamy , but "the media" has a vendetta against Mormons.

 

It might be reasonable to investigate this, but it would be shockingly absurd to state it as fact without evidence. Might it simply be that Mormons and polygamy are associated because polygamy was the most prominent defining feature (to outsiders) of the church for most of its early years??

Here is a list of returns from a search of lds.org, some of which identify media sources that have been less than accurate or clear with regard to differentiating between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and schismatic groups that practice polygamy today.

 

Granted, these are a few years old. Perhaps such instances are less common today. That would be welcome news if true. But if so, I submit that it has come about at least in part because the Church has been careful to demand accountability from the mass media on this point.

Edited April 21, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I am free to define "shockingly absurd" because I am the one who made the statement, I know my intent. You do not, you are not at liberty to define what I meant by my words.

 

 

But any communicator has the obligation to use terms that do not confuse or mislead. Communication is a two-way street, and both sender and receiver have responsibilities.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

But any communicator has the obligation to use terms that do not confuse or mislead. Communication is a two-way street, and both sender and receiver have responsibilities.

That was only half  my post, Scott.

[wenglund]

Instead of wasting my time- these questions should narrow the discussion...

Do Mormon Fundamentalist talk with a backwoods drawl?

Did Warren Jeffs wake up one morning and decide he wanted a "bunch of wives"?

Did Warren Jeffs decide to dress his wives like the "Little House on the Prairie"?

Were most of the men dead when polygamy was instituted?

Did any LDS men die in the War mentioned?

Are you sure the prettiest girls weren't selected for marriage when the arrived in the Deseret territory?

Did it end shortly after the arrival in Utah when the "persecution ended"? Is 40 something years a "short time"?

 

Those are some question off the top of my from what I remember of the video.... I was laughing so hard I probably missed some other gems.

 

This is good. If you are too lazy or unable to back up your stridently pejorative assertions, at least it is preferable that you back away from such bald and dismissive dogma and instead unassumingly introduce these kinds of reasonable investigative questions for open discussion. Nicely done.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BookofMormonLuvr]

This is good. If you are too lazy or unable to back up your stridently pejorative assertions, at least it is preferable that you back away from such bald and dismissive dogma and instead unassumingly introduce these kinds of reasonable investigative questions for open discussion. Nicely done.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Soooo.... are you going to actually answer the questions?

[Scott Lloyd]

That was only half  my post, Scott.

It was the portion I elected to respond to.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

This is good. If you are too lazy or unable to back up your stridently pejorative assertions, at least it is preferable that you back away from such bald and dismissive dogma and instead unassumingly introduce these kinds of reasonable investigative questions for open discussion. Nicely done.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What in the world are you talking about? I just thought Glenn was obnoxious in his presentation. Assertions and dogmas? You lost me buddy.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

It was the portion I elected to respond to.

Interesting.

[frank_jessop]

I do not think anyone here hasn't heard "lack of men" as the justification for polygamy stated in an official Church setting or formal teaching setting (this is too account for missionary discussions). The likelihood that a large percentage of LDS have heard the "lack of men" justification, makes the repeating of it slightly less absurd. Beck, a national voice, could have and should have done a better job.