mormonnewb Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 I don't see anything factually incorrect in the essay. The Deseret News probably did report that the voting was unanimous.You're not suggesting that it is ethical or moral to knowingly quote an inaccurate source as support for a factual assertion, right? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 But can you see how others might REASONABLY come to a different conclusion?Not without cynically ascribing impure motives to the Church and its leaders for which there is no compelling evidence.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) You're not suggesting that it is ethical or moral to knowingly quote an inaccurate source as support for a factual assertion, right?What I'm saying is there is nothing inherently unethical about saying that a certain source said a thing about such-and-such. One can always include the fact that there were reports to the contrary, and leave the reader or listener to draw his own conclusion, which the Gospel Topics essay has done in this case. Edited October 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 That was KevinG's term. Which was the post that I was responding to. But when one runs across information about Church history that he has not yet heard, he need not ascribe it to sinister intent or draw from it a sense of betrayal. I never have, and I daresay a host of people have not, under that circumstance. To put it another way, there may be much in the history of the Church to which I have not yet been exposed, but I don't believe it's because the Church is purposely hiding it from me. I never said that there was sinister intent. And I don't expect you to understand the sense of betrayal felt by many but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm not saying that they should leave the church over, but I acknowledge the validity of the feeling. “And to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine." - President Uchtdorf
Scott Lloyd Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) Oh, now come on. I can't believe you just said that. The essay intentionally restores the historically inaccurate claim that voting on the manifesto was unanimous. If the Deseret News reported that false information then the essay shouldn't be repeating it.That is a distinct bit of sneak and you know it.Don't you think it's useful to know what the Deseret News reported at the time so that people aren't blind-sided when they come across the information later? And no, I certainly do not think it's sneaky to acknowledge what a source was reporting at the time. To draw an analogy, one can convey information about the existence and content of the Doctor Philastus Hurlbut affidavits without endorsing them. If I recall correctly, Richard Bushman did just that in Rough Stone Rolling. Had he not done so, he might have been open to accusations that he was "hiding history." Edited October 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) Which was the post that I was responding to. I never said that there was sinister intent. And I don't expect you to understand the sense of betrayal felt by many but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I'm not saying that they should leave the church over, but I acknowledge the validity of the feeling. “And to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine." - President UchtdorfOne can understand a sense of betrayal without believing that it is justified. And a feeling that one has been betrayed presupposes ill intent on the party that supposedly did the betraying. Is this not the case? Edited October 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 You're not suggesting that it is ethical or moral to knowingly quote an inaccurate source as support for a factual assertion, right? Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. Wow. 1
blooit Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 It would be nice to know if the same ratio will exist in the eternities as well. There are no ratios when dealing with infinite numbers.
HappyJackWagon Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 Did I miss that? Because I was just praising the Church not to long ago for removing that from OD1 - the vote was historically NOT unanimous. But now it's back and the full quote from the essay now reads:I must have missed this. When was OD1 changed?
thesometimesaint Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 My first grade teacher never taught us calculus. For shame for shame on her.
JLHPROF Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 I must have missed this. When was OD1 changed? No idea. But it used to read: "President Lorenzo Snow offered the following: "'I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.'"The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous. "Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890." It now reads: President Lorenzo Snow offered the following:“I move that, recognizing Wilford Woodruff as the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and the only man on the earth at the present time who holds the keys of the sealing ordinances, we consider him fully authorized by virtue of his position to issue the Manifesto which has been read in our hearing, and which is dated September 24th, 1890, and that as a Church in General Conference assembled, we accept his declaration concerning plural marriages as authoritative and binding.” Salt Lake City, Utah, October 6, 1890. I was pleased when they removed the incorrect line. The essay now implies once again that it was a unanimous vote.
JLHPROF Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) Don't you think it's useful to know what the Deseret News reported at the time so that people aren't blind-sided when they come across the information later? And no, I certainly do not think it's sneaky to acknowledge what a source was reporting at the time. To draw an analogy, one can convey information about the existence and content of the Doctor Philastus Hurlbut affidavits without endorsing them. If I recall correctly, Richard Bushman did just that in Rough Stone Rolling. Had he not done so, he might have been open to accusations that he was "hiding history." That's not what happened here and you know it. The essay isn't using the DN report simply to say it existed. The essay is using it to make the manifesto vote appear unanimous. Anyone who can read can see that. By stating in the essay on the manifesto that the Deseret News reported the vote to be unanimous and not providing the correct facts, the essay is 100% using the DN reference as a historical fact. There's no way around the fact that the essay uses a fact from a known false report.It is absolutely sneaky. Edited October 27, 2014 by JLHPROF
Scott Lloyd Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 No idea. But it used to read: It now reads: I was pleased when they removed the incorrect line. The essay now implies once again that it was a unanimous vote.No, it says what was reported at the time and then goes on to say that there were abstentions. That's not implying it was unanimous.
JLHPROF Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 No, it says what was reported at the time and then goes on to say that there were abstentions. That's not implying it was unanimous. There were also votes in the negative...another 1/2 truth. You cannot say the vote was unanimous in the affirmative with a few abstentions, when history records there were negative votes cast.
Scott Lloyd Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) That's not what happened here and you know it. The essay isn't using the DN report simply to say it existed. The essay is using it to make the manifesto vote appear unanimous. Anyone who can read can see that. I can read, and that's not the meaning I get from it. Do not cast aspersions on my honesty or intelligence merely because you disagree with me. By stating in the essay on the manifesto that the Deseret News reported the vote to be unanimous and not providing the correct facts, the essay is 100% using the DN reference as a historical fact. It is absolutely sneaky. So you're going to ignore my Richard Bushman analogy then? And the essay did go on to say there were abstentions and that "most" -- not all -- voted in favor. You are wrong to say it did not provide correct facts. And you are wrong to say it was sneaky. Edited October 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
HappyJackWagon Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 My first grade teacher never taught us calculus. For shame for shame on her.You realize that is a foolish comparison, right? I hope you can see the difference.Hopefully your college math professor did teach you calculus and not claim that all math ends after geometry. Stop the personal insults. This thread is going to be closed if the squabbling doesn't stop.
HappyJackWagon Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 It wasn't "sneaky". It was "carefully worded."
Scott Lloyd Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) There were also votes in the negative...another 1/2 truth. You cannot say the vote was unanimous in the affirmative with a few abstentions, when history records there were negative votes cast.The essay states this: The Deseret News reported that the vote was “unanimous”; most voted in favor, though some abstained from voting. The phrase "most voted in favor" is as much as to say that there were indeed negative votes. So your only real beef is that the Deseret News report was mentioned at all. In effect you're complaining that the essay, in your view, provides too much information. That's a curious argument, indeed, in a thread where some are assuming that the Church in the past has not been open enough with its history. Edited October 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) Wow.Please note that I reworded my post to more correctly reflect my intended meaning after I noticed that mormonnewb had put words in my mouth. Edited October 27, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
tonie Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) Deseret Evening News did report unanimous. Deseret Evening News October 6, 1890, page 3, column 1 top left hand corner. to. the left of where the link directs "The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous." Edited October 27, 2014 by tonie
Scott Lloyd Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 Deseret Evening News did report unanimous. Deseret Evening News October 6, 1890, page 3, column 1 top left hand corner. to. the left of where the link directs "The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous."Nobody's questioning this. In fact, it's footnoted in the essay. I hope you didn't waste a lot of time looking this up when you could have just gone to the footnote in the essay.
JLHPROF Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 The essay states this: The phrase "most voted in favor" is as much as to say that there were indeed negative votes. So your only real beef is that the Deseret News report was mentioned at all. In effect you're complaining that the essay, in your view, provides too much information. That's a curious argument, indeed, in a thread where some are assuming that the Church in the past has not been open enough with its history. Ok, fair enough. I will give you that the essay at least implied there were negative votes before quoting a report to the contrary.I will cede the accuracy card on this one, but I still think a little more clarity would have been nice, especially considering how completely open and honest most of the essays are. Probably shouldn't quibble over the tiny things, but as I said before, I was just applauding the removal of the incorrect phrase from OD1. This vague reference just rubbed me the wrong way.
rockpond Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) Deleted Edited October 27, 2014 by rockpond
Kenngo1969 Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 Dehlin's research is self selected and after the fact if it is the survey I am thinking of. One needs to be very cautious applying it outside the group that participated.Dang it, Cal! You big Party Pooper, you!
rockpond Posted October 27, 2014 Posted October 27, 2014 Dang it, Cal! You big Party Pooper, you! Of course, it is more data than Kevin presented in his post, which nobody seemed to call out or question. Which, for me, shows the bias here... one can theorize as long as you are criticizing those who are having faith crises. But, if you theorize in a way that supports those having faith crises and is the least bit critical of the church, then you get called out on it and mocked. It's sad that this board keeps becoming more hostile for those who struggle, I had hoped it would be something different.
Recommended Posts