New Essay: Peace And Violence Among 19Th Century Saints

[Nevo]

I thought this was quite clear:

"President Wilford Woodruff, who was closely associated with the Prophet Joseph Smith, said: “Emma Smith, the widow of the Prophet, is said to have maintained to her dying moments that her husband had nothing to do with the patriarchal order of marriage, but that it was Brigham Young that got that up. I bear record before God, angels and men that Joseph Smith received that revelation, and I bear record that Emma Smith gave her husband in marriage to several women while he was living, some of whom are to-day living in this city, and some may be present in this congregation, and who, if called upon, would confirm my words. But lo and behold, we hear of publication after publication now-a-days, declaring that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with these things. Joseph Smith himself organized every endowment in our Church and revealed the same to the Church, and he lived to receive every key of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods from the hands of the men who held them while in the flesh, and who hold them in eternity.” (In Journal of Discourses, 23:131.)"

 

You're right, Cal. I should have read more carefully.

[Calm]

It was right at the end...just when I had given up.

If someone wasn't looking for it and wasn't reading carefully they could phase out on it. The lack of details does make it harder to retain information IMO. I really hope that even if the manuals stay light, that there will be a detail dense Gospel Topicessay that they refer students to so that it will be noticed and retained.

Edited May 19, 2014 by calmoriah

[canard78]

It is just astounding how deliberately insensitive and insulting your are towards fellow Saints who struggle or who have struggled.

 

I'm starting to think that maybe Pahoran is a troll. He is consistently and aggressively mean-spirited and rude to people he doesn't agree with. His level of obnoxiousness makes me wonder whether he is playing a game and enjoying winding people up.

[Pahoran]

It is just astounding how deliberately insensitive and insulting your are towards fellow Saints who struggle or who have struggled.

 

Again: what saints?  Where?

 

No doubt, your query is most likely a set up just for you to respond with your often used "No real Saint" fallacy. Mormonweb might respond with a name but very likely your retort would be "So and so isn't a real Saint, therefore no real Saints 'have been crushed to learn that members of THEIR Church could engage in such savagery."

 

No, I wasn't looking for a name.  But since you raised the subject, I'll tell you: Mister John Dehlin is in no meaningful way a Latter-day Saint.  There's nothing new about the so-called "New Order Mormons;" they're just old order jack Mormons.  Or Latter-day Laodiceans.  Or MINO's, if you prefer.

 

And we know all about the so-called "middle way;" Nephi described it as a "fountain of filthy water."

 

And no, the criteria I've described have absolutely nothing to do with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, which you either don't understand, or have deliberately misapplied.  That fallacy involves creating an ad hoc definition based upon the point to be proven; I'm talking about actual, objective and meaningful distinctions which everybody knows to be valid, but which you insist we should all ignore so as to spare people's tender feelings.  Or something.

 

No doubt you think every poseur who rocks in here with the standard cover story about how they're an oh-so-faithful Mormon with 43 callings and "just one little question," which question invariably sprouts into the standard laundry list of standard anti-Mormon talking points, is a real honest-to-gawrsh Mormon.

 

Or maybe you know that they're not, but you think I should accept them as such, just because they say so.

 

So, which is it?

 

I happen to agree with you that the Church, as best as I have read, has not taken responsibility for the MMM. In the most recent essay, the Church admits that local leadership is responsible. But the actions of a local leader shouldn't necessarily be considered an action of the Church.

 

You're right.  They shouldn't.  And the fact that it was a local operation is historically valid.

 

I suppose you think the Church should just cop to it anyway, because it might make someone feel good; is that right?

 

As for the actions being inconsistent with the Doctrine of the Church, well, that just appears to presentism on your part - or of the sources cited in the essay; we would have to ask the Saints of the day who committed the MMM what was Doctrine, and if Blood Atonement was Doctrine of its day.

 

Who are just so conveniently unavailable for comment.  So you imagine you can rest your case by appealing to witnesses who cannot testify, is that it?

 

Well, as the accuser, you shoulder the burden of proof.  So I don't have to say anything at all, and your argument fails for lack of support.

 

But I don't believe in merely playing defence.  I like to take the opportunity to score some points for the good guys.

 

(That's us, just so you know.  The ones you are accusing.)

 

Setting aside the fact that "Blood atonement" was always a theoretical exercise, a "What if" scenario intended to substitute for "Hellfire and brimstone," let us recall what the elements of "Blood Atonement" were supposed to be.  It was supposed to entail:

 

1. Latter-day Saints, who
2. Had made covenants, and
3. Subsequently broken them, including committing capital offences,
4. Voluntarily surrendering themselves
5. To have justice done upon them
6. As part of their repentance.

Exactly how does any of that apply to the people in the Fancher train?

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

It is important that we maintain civility. You are consistently negative and accusatory so please improve the attitude to remain in threads.

[Tacenda]

Wonder what you think of Pres. Uchtdorf, Pahoran.

[frank_jessop]

Again: what saints? Where?

Is this your attempt to assert a statement is untrue because you do not know?

There's nothing new about the so-called "New Order Mormons;" they're just old order jack Mormons. Or Latter-day Laodiceans. Or MINO's, if you prefer.

There is nothing new about pronouncements from a rameumpton either.

And we know all about the so-called "middle way;" ...

I would say this meets the threshold for "we all know" fallacy

And no, the criteria I've described have absolutely nothing to do with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, ... I'm talking about actual, objective and meaningful distinctions which everybody knows to be valid,...

Use of "everybody knows" fallacy

(That's us, just so you know. The ones you are accusing.)

Do you often refer to yourself in plural form? I accused you.

Setting aside the fact that "Blood atonement" was always a theoretical exercise,...

Regards,

Pahoran

CFR

If you are referring to a 1978 letter from Elder McConkie, said letter does not suffice; for at least two reasons.

First, if we accept that a letter from an Apostle establishes a position of the Church - shouldn't we acceept that ALL letters from Apostles sent under the direction of the First Presidency or letters from the First Presidency establish the position of the Church? Otherwise, one is just enjoying the cafeteria approach to the LDS faith.

Second, McConkie denies it is Doctrine, then asserts it is Doctrine.

"You note that I and President Joseph Fielding Smith and some of our early church leaders have said and written about this doctrine and you asked if the doctrine of blood atonement is an official doctrine of the Church today.

... If by blood atonement is meant the shedding of the blood of men to atone in some way for their own sins, the answer is No. ...

However, and this cannot be stressed too strongly, this law has not been given to the Church at any time in this dispensation. It has no application whatever to anyone now living whether he is a member or a non-member of the Church.

Let me say categorically and unequivocally that this doctrine can only operate in a day when ...

There is no such a doctrine as blood atonement in the Church today nor has there been at any time."

It either is a Doctrine or it is not a Doctrine. It not being a Doctrine is different from being a Doctrine that is not currently practice, much like polygamy. Additionally, I think other aspects of the letter are not supported by current teachings of the Church.

Edited May 19, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Pahoran]

Wonder what you think of Pres. Uchtdorf, Pahoran.

Since you asked, I'll tell you.

I think -- in fact, I know -- that President Uchtdorf was absolutely right when he said that Church members and leaders are fallible and make mistakes.

I also know that he was not admitting to every -- nor indeed, necessarily any -- anti-Mormon accusation.

In fact, he specifically said that the mistakes of those members and leaders consisted in acting contrary to the teachings of the Church.

Did you notice that part?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

First we have this:

I'm starting to think that maybe Pahoran is a troll. He is consistently and aggressively mean-spirited and rude to people he doesn't agree with. His level of obnoxiousness makes me wonder whether he is playing a game and enjoying winding people up.

Immediately followed by a moderator note addressed to me: 

 

It is important that we maintain civility. You are consistently negative and accusatory so please improve the attitude to remain in threads.

Amazing.

Simply amazing.

Good thing I didn't call anyone a troll, isn't it? I'd be summarily excluded from the thread without so much as a warning.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Is this your attempt to assert a statement is untrue because you do not know?

No, it's a CFR.

 

There is nothing new about pronouncements from a rameumpton either.

Quite right.

You were looking in the mirror when you wrote that, I take it?

 

I would say this meets the threshold for "we all know" fallacy.

I don't think you really understand what fallacies are. You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Are you saying you don't know what was in the "middle" of Lehi's dream, between the tree and the building?

 

Use of "everybody knows" fallacy

I don't think you really understand what fallacies are. You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Are you saying you don't know the difference between meaningful distinctions and ad hoc definitions?

 

Do you often refer to yourself in plural form? I accused you.

Thank you for admitting that. Not that you risk anything by so doing; I'm sure you are entirely safe from any moderator intervention.

And yes, those who'd like to attack the Church of Jesus Christ frequently find its defenders a convenient substitute.

 

CFR

You first.

 

If you are referring to a 1978 letter from Elder McConkie, said letter does not suffice; for at least two reasons.

First, if we accept that a letter from an Apostle establishes a position of the Church - shouldn't we acceept that ALL letters from Apostles sent under the direction of the First Presidency or letters from the First Presidency establish the position of the Church? Otherwise, one is just enjoying the cafeteria approach to the LDS faith.

Second, McConkie denies it is Doctrine, then asserts it is Doctrine.

"You note that I and President Joseph Fielding Smith and some of our early church leaders have said and written about this doctrine and you asked if the doctrine of blood atonement is an official doctrine of the Church today.

... If by blood atonement is meant the shedding of the blood of men to atone in some way for their own sins, the answer is No. ...

However, and this cannot be stressed too strongly, this law has not been given to the Church at any time in this dispensation. It has no application whatever to anyone now living whether he is a member or a non-member of the Church.

Let me say categorically and unequivocally that this doctrine can only operate in a day when ...

There is no such a doctrine as blood atonement in the Church today nor has there been at any time."

It either is a Doctrine or it is not a Doctrine. It not being a Doctrine is different from being a Doctrine that is not currently practice, much like polygamy. Additionally, I think other aspects of the letter are not supported by current teachings of the Church.

So you issue a CFR, and then rush to exclude what you think the source was.

But there's nothing at all presumptuous about that, is there?

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited May 20, 2014 by Pahoran

[frank_jessop]

Thank you for admitting that. Not that you risk anything by so doing; I'm sure you are entirely safe from any moderator intervention.

I have no problem stating that I accused you of being "deliberately insensitive and insulting". I am sure you could talk to the moderators about how "safe from any moderation intervention" I am; it is there business not mine. As for you use of fallacies, you are welcome to continue using them, just realize that you will be called out for your use of fallacies.

And yes, those who'd like to attack the Church of Jesus Christ frequently find its defenders a convenient substitute.

You talked about scoring points, I am sure that was metaphorical. Have you ever considered that many people on this board "score points" metaphorically for the Church all the while being kind and sensitive to others?

So you issue a CFR, and then rush to exclude what you think the source was.

But there's nothing at all presumptuous about that, is there?

Regards,

Pahoran

I was being very presumptuous, and it appears I was correct in my presumption.

Here is how it went down. I thought to myself, "theoretical" is a very particular word to use, I do not think Pahoran would just use that word out of the blue to describe 'Blood Atonement'. So I decided I would enter the following into google "Blood Atonement" theoretical (note the quotations for "Blood Atonement". Turns out one of the first page results is a SHIELDS posting of a letter from Elder McConkie, he used the term "theoretical".

Now the value and weight to give the 1978 letter. For reasons already stated I do not give it much of either. And I offer a refutation of the letter to show that I read it and disagreed with it.

Questions to consider about the letter when deciding how much value and weight to give it.

1. Since when is it a practice to use letter sent on Church letter head to established a position of the Church?

2. When are we permitted to take a cafeteria approach to such letters i.e choosing to completely ignore some and wholeheartedly hold fast to others.

3. The 1978 McConkie letter claims "blood atonement" is not Doctrine, then claims it is Doctrine.

4. The 1978 McConkie letter is, in my opinion, at odds with the position of the Church regarding "blood atonement".

5. Since when does a statement from a Prophet published in a newspaper establish Doctrine or even a position of the Church. (In the 1978 letter McConkie quote Woodruff, which quote is from a what amounts to a "Letter to the Editor" published in published in 1891 wherein Woodruff address among other things the MMM.

[Pahoran]

I have no problem stating that I accused you of being "deliberately insensitive and insulting". I am sure you could talk to the moderators about how "safe from any moderation intervention" I am; it is there business not mine. As for you use of fallacies, you are welcome to continue using them, just realize that you will be called out for your use of fallacies.

 

If ever I use one.  So far, you are 0/3 in your attempts to call me out for my "use of fallacies."

 

I was being very presumptuous, and it appears I was correct in my presumption.

Here is how it went down. I thought to myself, "theoretical" is a very particular word to use, I do not think Pahoran would just use that word out of the blue to describe 'Blood Atonement'. So I decided I would enter the following into google "Blood Atonement" theoretical (note the quotations for "Blood Atonement". Turns out one of the first page results is a SHIELDS posting of a letter from Elder McConkie, he used the term "theoretical".

 

And he did so independently of me.

Great minds, you know, think alike.

 

But I didn't get it from him.

 

"Theoretical" is not all that unusual a word for me to use.  You shot a blank on that one.

 

Sorry.

 

Maybe later I'll address your abuse of Elder McConkie's letter.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[frank_jessop]

If ever I use one.  So far, you are 0/3 in your attempts to call me out for my "use of fallacies."

You have used fallacies - "No True Scottsman" and "ad populum", you of course deny your use of fallacies, which is as I expected. Which is also why I stated it simply isn't worth it in a different thread. You keep claiming you don't use fallacies, but the evidence speaks against you. Your use of "No real missionary....", "No real Saint..." or variations thereof, demonstrate your use of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Your "everybody knows" is your use of the "ad populum" falacy. Denying that you use fallacious arguments does not remove the fallacious nature of your arguments.

A curious thing that you focus in on your use of fallacies, but you make you argument about my statement that you are deliberately insensitive and insulting. A post you made on patheos about how getting rich off of controversy than civility offers insight to present situation.

"Theoretical" is not all that unusual a word for me to use.

Sorry.

Regards,

Pahoran

Using the board search feature, you have used the term "theoretical" only once since I joined the board - not counting the repeats in this thread.

And you still have not provided the reference to your claim "Setting aside the fact that "Blood atonement" was always a theoretical exercise." I reiterate that CFR for this claim of yours as well.

I await your insight on the value and weight of McConkies 1978 letter. And you insight on the cafeteria of rejecting letters from presiding authorities and accepting letters from presiding authorities.

Edited May 20, 2014 by frank_jessop

[Pahoran]

You have used fallacies - "No True Scottsman" and "ad populum", you of course deny your use of fallacies, which is as I expected. Which is also why I stated it simply isn't worth it in a different thread. You keep claiming you don't use fallacies, but the evidence speaks against you. Your use of "No real missionary....", "No real Saint..." or variations thereof, demonstrate your use of the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Your "everybody knows" is your use of the "ad populum" falacy. Denying that you use fallacious arguments does not remove the fallacious nature of your arguments.

 

Hey, Frankie?  "Proof by repeated assertion" is a fallacy too.

 

Merely sticking a label on something doesn't make it what you want it to be.

The argumentum ad populum fallacy exists when a person argues that because something is widely held, it must be true.  I have neither claimed nor implied any such thing.  I have simply pointed to non-controversial facts.

 

Likewise, the fact (and it is a fact, however un-PC you may find it) that not all Mormons are Latter-day Saints in any meaningful way is in no sense an appeal to the "No true Scotsman" fallacy.  As I already pointed out (and you failed entirely to address) that fallacy exists when someone constructs an ad-hoc definition that matches the point he is attempting to prove.

 

I have not done that.

 

A curious thing that you focus in on your use of fallacies, but you make you argument about my statement that you are deliberately insensitive and insulting. A post you made on patheos about how getting rich off of controversy than civility offers insight to present situation.

 

What on earth are you talking about?  I don't "get rich off of" anything I post anywhere.

 

 

Using the board search feature, you have used the term "theoretical" only once since I joined the board - not counting the repeats in this thread.

I'm not surprised. Most of my nearly 10,000 posts were made before you joined the board.

And I'm quite unused to being called a liar by an upstart.

And, just so you know, I don't intend to become used to it.

 

And you still have not provided the reference to your claim "Setting aside the fact that "Blood atonement" was always a theoretical exercise." I reiterate that CFR for this claim of yours as well.

I await your insight on the value and weight of McConkies 1978 letter. And you insight on the cafeteria of rejecting letters from presiding authorities and accepting letters from presiding authorities.

I was not referring to Elder McConkie's letter.

And you still have an outstanding CFR before you.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Skylla]

This thread has run its course.