Is The Only Way To Win Not To Play?

[Calm]

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/63036-is-anyone-here-besides-me-non-mormon/page-3#entry1209378127

[mormonnewb]

No, no judging allowed. No questions asked...

No discussion or presumptions or assumptions will be tolerated.

Nope...not allowed nor speaking ill of anyone with authority..

No voices will be heard except your own.

Condemnation, damnation and intolerance heard quite clearly.

 

Respectful or not, right or wrong, other voices will be silenced for all eternity.

Agency and freedoms revoked.

History repeated.

 

Message received loud and clear,

 

I hear ya, Sister.  I'm just very slow and haven't gotten the message yet.  I hope that you don't "get it" either.

 

We need someone willing to speak their truth boldly even if it might bruise some sensibilities.  After 180 years, I think Mormonism is mature enough to honestly deal with its past and that seems to be what the Church is doing (even if clumsily at times).  So maybe we saints can put on our big boy/girl garments and start facing these issues head-on.

 

And Kenngo1969, I'm going to report myself for this post.  I'd hate for you to have to tattle yet again today.

[JLHPROF]

I hear ya, Sister.  I'm just very slow and haven't gotten the message yet.  I hope that you don't "get it" either.

 

We need someone willing to speak their truth boldly even if it might bruise some sensibilities.  After 180 years, I think Mormonism is mature enough to honestly deal with its past and that seems to be what the Church is doing (even if clumsily at times).  So maybe we saints can put on our big boy/girl garments and start facing these issues head-on.

 

And Kenngo1969, I'm going to report myself for this post.  I'd hate for you to have to tattle yet again today.

 

I will face any issue head on you wish and look directly at the facts.  But don't expect my interpretation of the historical facts to match your interpretation.  I deny no historical fact, but I don't think it means what others think it means, because you have to be able to connect the doctrine of the gospel with the historical fact.  When you do that, a different picture always forms.

[mormonnewb]

I will face any issue head on you wish and look directly at the facts.  But don't expect my interpretation of the historical facts to match your interpretation.  I deny no historical fact, but I don't think it means what others think it means, because you have to be able to connect the doctrine of the gospel with the historical fact.  When you do that, a different picture always forms.

 

Agreed.  You're not one to play the "offense card."  You're understandably quite protective of JS and BY, but you're willing to deal with the FACTS.  Sure, you come to the wrong conclusion (tongue-mostly-in-cheek), but as you point out, it's a matter of interpreting those facts.

 

My only question is how do you connect static historical facts with ever-changing doctrine?

 

And isn't that just painting a bulls-eye around the arrow?  Which seems to me a form of collective narcissism (something I know a lot about on the individual level).  On an individual level, there is nothing more dangerous than the person who works on the default assumption that their actions are always proper.  Because that person will be able to rationalize any and every conceivable horror on the basis of that if they did it, it must be right.

 

Trust me on this one.  For years, I interpreted all facts through the "gospel" of Mormonnewb and my underlying truth was that I would never lead me astray.  As a result, if you asked me why I lied to such and such person or failed to keep such commitment, I could very quickly formulate an apologetic to explain why I was right.  After all, it simply wasn't possible that I was wrong, so therefore, THEIR interpretation of the facts was just wrong.  If only they looked at things through my gospel lens, they would know the "truth."

 

Now, fortunately, I lacked the ambition to use my "inerrancy" to accomplish great things.  As a result, my sins (while many) were of the fairly banal variety.  Even more, I was raised by incredible parents and nurtured in a loving environment, so MOST of what I desired was generally good/neutral in its impact on others.  Only on very rare occasions would I secretly pour hot sauce into baby bottles (Note to Kenngo1969: I'm kidding.  Don't report me to the mods).  However, I know that I could have EASILY justified theft, deceit and even the M-word (take your pick), if it came to that.  

 

And by the way, that thread still runs deep in me.  I have to constantly tell myself, "Newb, you COULD be wrong.  It's not likely or probable, but it is possible."  In truth, it's much more probable than I'd like to believe, but it's the only way that I've been able to grow the micron or so I have as a person over the last decade or so.

 

Don't we run into the same danger if our default position is that JS (or BY or the current leaders) could not possibly be wrong?  Wouldn't it be better to work from the filter that they could POSSIBLY be wrong about this or that?  We can acknowledge that they are men who earnestly seek the will of God and most often, find it and follow it.  However, it is POSSIBLE that they might be a micron off at times and that rather than repaint the bulls-eye around the target, it would be better for us to pick up our arrow?

[JLHPROF]

My only question is how do you connect static historical facts with ever-changing doctrine?

 

And isn't that just painting a bulls-eye around the arrow?  Which seems to me a form of collective narcissism (something I know a lot about on the individual level).  On an individual level, there is nothing more dangerous than the person who works on the default assumption that their actions are always proper.  Because that person will be able to rationalize any and every conceivable horror on the basis of that if they did it, it must be right.

 

Don't we run into the same danger if our default position is that JS (or BY or the current leaders) could not possibly be wrong?  Wouldn't it be better to work from the filter that they could POSSIBLY be wrong about this or that?  We can acknowledge that they are men who earnestly seek the will of God and most often, find it and follow it.  However, it is POSSIBLE that they might be a micron off at times and that rather than repaint the bulls-eye around the target, it would be better for us to pick up our arrow?

 

I don't connect historical facts to ever-changing doctrine but to eternal gospel principle.  Truth is reason truth eternal.

And for the record, I don't believe that any of the prophets are infallible.  I can show you numerous mistakes Joseph made (from the trip to Boston for money to forcing God to give Martin Harris the 116 pages to trusting one John C. Bennett).  Lots of errors.

But I do believe that Joseph's character was without doctrinal flaw or guile.  He never coerced a woman, never committed adultery, never claimed revelation where there was none.  His biggest weakness was trusting others, even to the point of ignoring warnings.

 

No, I don't believe the early prophets (or the modern prophets) are perfect.  But I do believe them to be Christlike men, not lecherous liars who made up most of the gospel according to their opinions but did get the occasional genuine revelation.

[Kenngo1969]

... And Kenngo1969, I'm going to report myself for this post.  I'd hate for you to have to tattle yet again today.

Oh .  There's plenty one can say on all sides of the polygyny issue without accusing our leaders of rape.  If you think things like that are kosher here, I'm glad you're not a mod.

[Kenngo1969]

Agreed.  You're not one to play the "offense card."  ...

Hate to burst your bubble, there, Newb, but JLHProf gave me a rep point for my calling WysteriaBlue out of bounds for accusing our leaders of rape.  As for playing the offense card (or not), whine all you want about that: you have no idea how thick my skin really is. I can count on one hand (or maybe both, at most) how many times I have reported somebody in nearly fifteen years of posting on this Board and its predecessors.

 

Sorry to interrupt.  I'll let you get back to your whining.

[Kenngo1969]

No, no judging allowed. [Sure it is; Just remember Matthew 7:1-5, and try not to judge 19th-century events by 21st-century sensibilities]

No questions asked ... [Baloney.  That's more than a little overwrought; if that were so, we could shut down the Board and go home.]

No discussion or presumptions or assumptions will be tolerated. [You're one for three!  It's a start!]

Nope...not allowed nor speaking ill of anyone with authority.. [Critiquing actions of past (or present) leaders is one thing; rape accusations are another.]

No voices will be heard except your own. [Right; I have 10,000 personalities!]

Condemnation, damnation and intolerance heard quite clearly. [Pot, meet kettle?]

Respectful or not, right or wrong, other voices will be silenced for all eternity. [There's nothing "respectful" about accusing our leaders of rape.]

Agency and freedoms revoked. [ Would you like some crackers and cheese to go with that whine? ]

History repeated. [No idea what you're talking about here, but, if you say so ...]

Message received loud and clear.  [Good; I'm glad you received the message that rape accusations are out of bounds, because they are; if you have a problem with that, it says more about YOU than it does about anyone else]

Edited October 29, 2014 by Kenngo1969

[mormonnewb]

Hate to burst your bubble, there, Newb, but JLHProf gave me a rep point for my calling WysteriaBlue out of bounds for accusing our leaders of rape.  As for playing the offense card (or not), whine all you want about that: you have no idea how thick my skin really is. I can count on one hand (or maybe both, at most) how many times I have reported somebody in nearly fifteen years of posting on this Board and its predecessors.

 

Sorry to interrupt.  I'll let you get back to your whining.

 

As I read it, she simply pointed out the laws that define STATUTORY rape.  Did she say that JS committed such a crime or simply point out why we have such laws?

 

If you recall, we were discussing the propriety of a relationship between a 35+ yo man and a 14 yo girl.  Some pointed out that 14 yo in today's terms is much different than 14 yo in the mid-19th century (fair point).  In rebuttal, our sister pointed out that 14 yo was still considered pretty young back then.  Her evidence for that assertion was to point to the statutory rape laws, which are a pretty good barometer for a particular society's view of the age at which girls are considered "old enough."  How is this out of bounds?

 

To me, this would be the equivalent of having a conversation about someone's drinking.  One side of the discussion would be saying, "Hey, drinking and driving is fine so long as the driver isn't impaired and John can really hold his liquor."  And second person might say, "Regardless of that, the legal limit is 0.08%.  We set this limit because ..."

 

In this case, the second person isn't calling the driver "a degenerate drunk" or even "a drunk driver"?  No, the person is simply pointing out to the objective standard by which society judges the propriety of a particular activity.

 

You are really finding offense where none was meant, but I'm the whiner, right?

[Duncan]

As I read it, she simply pointed out the laws that define STATUTORY rape.  Did she say that JS committed such a crime or simply point out why we have such laws?

 

If you recall, we were discussing the propriety of a relationship between a 35+ yo man and a 14 yo girl.  Some pointed out that 14 yo in today's terms is much different than 14 yo in the mid-19th century (fair point).  In rebuttal, our sister pointed out that 14 yo was still considered pretty young back then.  Her evidence for that assertion was to point to the statutory rape laws, which are a pretty good barometer for a particular society's view of the age at which girls are considered "old enough."  How is this out of bounds?

 

To me, this would be the equivalent of having a conversation about someone's drinking.  One side of the discussion would be saying, "Hey, drinking and driving is fine so long as the driver isn't impaired and John can really hold his liquor."  And second person might say, "Regardless of that, the legal limit is 0.08%.  We set this limit because ..."

 

In this case, the second person isn't calling the driver "a degenerate drunk" or even "a drunk driver"?  No, the person is simply pointing out to the objective standard by which society judges the propriety of a particular activity.

 

You are really finding offense where none was meant, but I'm the whiner, right?

 

 

historians don't inject what their values are but how did people back then, in this case, view things. Was ir right or wrong that this happened? well, what did so and so say about it-again whether or not they are right or wrong is irrelevant. So, what did Fanny Alger or Sister hoopdee doopdee from back then say about it. I want to read what happened and what people thought about things back in the day not what a historians thinks or believes.

[Kenngo1969]

As I read it, she simply pointed out the laws that define STATUTORY rape.  Did she say that JS committed such a crime or simply point out why we have such laws?

 

I don't recall WysteriaBlue qualifying her accusation of rape in that manner.  If she did, the mods simply could've said, "Pfft!  There goes that Kenngo1969, spewing hot air again," and ignored my report.

 

If you recall, we were discussing the propriety of a relationship between a 35+ yo man and a 14 yo girl.  Some pointed out that 14 yo in today's terms is much different than 14 yo in the mid-19th century (fair point).  In rebuttal, our sister pointed out that 14 yo was still considered pretty young back then.  Her evidence for that assertion was to point to the statutory rape laws, which are a pretty good barometer for a particular society's view of the age at which girls are considered "old enough."  How is this out of bounds?

 

 

Again, I don't recall WysteriaBlue qualifying her accusation of rape in the post I reported with the qualifier statutory.  In any case, while I haven't researched the matter exhaustively, nor am I inclined to do so, as I understand it, statutory rape laws are a fairly recent phenomenon.  If that is true, then, at best, trying to superimpose a 21st-century law on a 19th-century occurrence is presentism, and an apples-and-oranges comparison.  Even if that's not the case, the age of consent was much lower in Joseph Smith's day than it is now.

 

To me, this would be the equivalent of having a conversation about someone's drinking.  One side of the discussion would be saying, "Hey, drinking and driving is fine so long as the driver isn't impaired and John can really hold his liquor."  And second person might say, "Regardless of that, the legal limit is 0.08%.  We set this limit because ..."

 

In this case, the second person isn't calling the driver "a degenerate drunk" or even "a drunk driver"?  No, the person is simply pointing out to the objective standard by which society judges the propriety of a particular activity.

 

 

 

Again, I don't recall WysteriaBlue qualifying her accusation of rape in the post I reported with the qualifier statutory.  And again, as I understand it, statutory rape is a 20th- and 21st-century concept, so it's not terribly useful to try to superimpose that modern reality on 19th-century events.  And believe it or not, Newb, I'm reasonably intelligent and reasonably adept in the use and understanding of the English language (your condescension to the contrary notwithstanding!).  You can try to pee on my leg and tell me it's raining, but I'm not buying it.

 

You are really finding offense where none was meant, but I'm the whiner, right?

 

OK.  Whatever.  I'm not the only one who felt WysteriaBlue's accusation was out of bounds, judging by the facts that (1) the mods acted on my report rather than simply ignoring it, as they usually do, and (2) my response calling WysteriaBlue out for the rape allegation received, as of this writing, at least one rep point.  And again, you can call me thin-skinned if you want, but I can count on one hand (or maybe both, at most) the number of posts I have reported to moderators in nearly fifteen years of posting on this Board and its predecessors.  If that makes me nothing but a thin-skinned whiner in your eyes (and while this may come as a shock to you ) I really am completely and totally OK with that. 

[WysteriaBlue]

To the nameless...

 

You have no idea what I was trying to say.

 

Your unrelated rants and attempts to judge and decimate everything that I did say only shows your own ignorance of what I said, and total lack of Christian values like empathy, compassion and love.  And definitely the lack of any understanding of a point of view other than your own...

 

I WAS discussing the lack of choices and 'coercion' inherent in the taking of polygamous wives of other members and young women of good character.  Coercion was inherent by the very fact that their religious LEADER, mayor, someone of trust, and household leader told them that they would either comply with the laws he put forth as prophesy or face eternal damnation/death by God/and lack of family in the afterlife. 

 

Their husbands and families of the community were also pressured in the same vein of wanting to do the right thing according to their leader's enlightened revelations.  In light of reformist and religious fervor of the day, and in light of the lack of any real rights at all, the girls/women 'in essence' had no choice but to comply.  That technically is a form of sexual abuse OR in today's terms "sexual discrimination” or rape….but that is 21^st century language…you wouldn’t understand that.

 

In my post #78, after a generalized definition of rape…I highlighted that coercion and threats and lack of opportunity to elude such demands, are part of the definition.  I then went on to give specific examples from history so as to better understand the point of views of women in such situations.

 

I was respectful and tried to discuss the point of view of the women involved and originally asked to be in polygamous relationships with Joseph Smith before it was even a part of the D&C or revealed prophesy.

His wife Emma rejected it, and his closest associate and scribe and religious elder Cowdery rejected it, some of the other husbands and members questioned it and started a newspaper to protest.... 

 

I even quite clearly stated that the differences between the prophet and his worth as a spiritual leader could be differentiated from the man/natural man and the temptations that he must have faced....  I also made corrections and apologized for confusing some of the facts of the lives of the many wives…

 

Please stop posting your protestations, defilement and misrepresentation of what I did say and pabulum as if you did indeed understand.  You obviously don't.  The fact that you reacted so vehemently to such a says monuments for your lack of real integrity and close minded attitudes.

 

If the Elders today asked you to bring in your car as a form of tithing to the poor, would you not do so as a righteous and holy member of the priesthood?  If ordered by President Monson to give up your cars and give it to the church so that others could have a way to work, would you not do so to keep your endowment and covenant with the church?

 

As early members, many had lost their homes and farms and livelihoods due to their faith and persecution.  Many had to move more than once.  Many had to take the long, arduous and deadly journey to Utah.  Would you not be just as faithful and give up your home, computer, car and move to Missouri when the President orders you to?  You who judge so quickly those "armchair" opinion of others…

I'm not surprised that you just don't get the concept of the courage of those women.

 

You talk about wanting to be judges and apostles and having the right/ability/knowledge to judge.  You do that very well...as seen by your deluded graffiti on my post and lack of respect for anyone but yourself and insulated hauteur.

 

If your actions and the false accusations and slander, of a person seeking faith and God and the love of Jesus are the typical behaviours of men holding the keys of the Melchizedek priesthood, then there is something wrong in the values you have taken on personally.  You have lost Jesus in the doctrine, and lost charity and compassion in pursuit of pride and the need to degrade others.

 

The shame is not on me for questioning or stating ideas, but on you for the wicked words you spat in ignorance. 

I’m not ashamed for the integrity to write what I felt so strongly about in reaction to the denigration of the women of the early church in some of the earlier posts on the thread. 

 

Their courage is what should be admired.  That indeed was the point all along.

[mormonnewb]

historians don't inject what their values are but how did people back then, in this case, view things. Was ir right or wrong that this happened? well, what did so and so say about it-again whether or not they are right or wrong is irrelevant. So, what did Fanny Alger or Sister hoopdee doopdee from back then say about it. I want to read what happened and what people thought about things back in the day not what a historians thinks or believes.

That's not true. At one point, most Americans were perfectly fine with slavery. However, with the exception of Cliven Bundy, everyone today condemns the practice. We have no problem imposing our modern views on the Huns, the Mongols and the people of Sodom.

[Calm]

My advice since the mods haven't stepped in yet, there appears to be some misreadings going on from pretty much all sides, I think it would be best if everyone just stepped back and let the thread die and maybe in a week or two if needed start again from scratch without assuming you know what the other means based on this thread, but act like you never talked about polygamy before and make very short posts dealing with one point at a time to help avoid confusion.

Apologies for being a board nanny but this is painful to watch.

Edited October 30, 2014 by calmoriah

[Duncan]

That's not true. At one point, most Americans were perfectly fine with slavery. However, with the exception of Cliven Bundy, everyone today condemns the practice. We have no problem imposing our modern views on the Huns, the Mongols and the people of Sodom.

 

very true but if you were going to write a book or article about attitudes towards slavery in the 19th century USA you'd need to study what the attitudes were in the 19th century USA-whether you agreed with them or not.

 

So, for example maybe you would study what People in New Hampshire in the 1800's thought about Slavery, you'd need to study New Hampshireans statements about slavery, whether you liked them or not

Edited October 30, 2014 by Duncan

[WysteriaBlue]

As you recommend, Calmoriah, I will be happy to withdraw from this conversation.  It has indeed been painful.

 

Respectfully,

wb