Anti-Mormon

[Russell C McGregor]

6 minutes ago, salgare said:

Your are absolutely right!  Yes, of course how would you know about it when its being keep on the down and low?  Thanks Russell you have helped me to identify what it really appears to be ... the Givens underground.  I will use this description from here on out. 

Wow, talking about really excellent Fifth Columnists!  Orthodoxy to Humanism!  Thumbs up everyone.

So the fact that there's no evidence for a "Givens movement" proves that there really is such a thing?

Because if it wasn't a thing, then they wouldn't be trying so hard to hide the evidence, right?

 

[cdowis]

23 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

The plates were not even used in the translation process (peepstone in hat).

Let me ask a question.  If the plates were not part of the translation process, please tell us why was it necessary for JS to have possession of the plates in order to translate?

No one understands the translation process because JS specifically declined to explain it, even to his brother.  "They were not used" is a pretense to knowledge which you do not possess.  But we do know -- no plates, no translation.

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, Jim Stiles said:

Grace after all that you can do is works salvation.  Grace is not applied until the works is done.  2 Nephi 25:23 is simply the old Covenant of Works, which is no salvation whatsoever.

No one ever does all that they can do; to say otherwise is a wicked, impious lie.  If Adam and Eve had followed the one simple rule, then they would have been saved.  They (and by extension, we) did not, so another plan was needed.

We appreciate that you share your particular beliefs here on this forum of those outside the church.  We accept and believe in ALL the Word of God, including the Bible and modern revelation and see things differently.

It would be safe to say that we disagree with every sentence in  your post above, but I'm sure you already know that.

Edited April 13, 2016 by cdowis

[salgare]

1 hour ago, Russell C McGregor said:

So the fact that there's no evidence for a "Givens movement" proves that there really is such a thing?

Because if it wasn't a thing, then they wouldn't be trying so hard to hide the evidence, right?

It's simple Russell, publicly answer the questions I've put to you and then ask Mark and Robert to do the same.  There is nothing to hide here right?

[ALarson]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The bottom-line consideration here is that Lee's memoirs have been tainted by Bishop's meddling and thus have been forever rendered unreliable.

Why didn't Bishop publish Lee's writing as is? Why did he have to add stuff?

An honest man, if he felt the work needed elucidation, would have included commentary under his own authorship, carefully distinguishing it from Lee's own words. Or at the very least, he would have had Lee read the revised version and sign off on it before his death.

And in the day, the public was never told about the tampering. We only know about it now because research a century later has unearthed Bishop's correspondence.

We will probably never know what portions Bishop added, but given the circumstances, we can make an educated guess by asking ourselves this question: What did Bishop need the published work to include in order to make it appealing (and marketable) to a public already enraged against the Mormons by publicity surrounding the massacre? He would need it to include verbiage directly fingering Brigham Young as ordering the massacre. That's the sort of "facts" a hateful readership would have found "useful" -- for the obvious reason that it would have confirmed their prejudice.

Giving credence to this doctored memoir above the clear and convincing direct evidence of Brigham Young's written order to the Iron County settlers not to molest or "meddle with" the wagon train is at the very least unwise. Presenting it as evidence of Brigham Young's culpability without disclosing the fact that Bishop said he was going to tamper with it before publishing it is, at the very least, less than honest.

 

 

You can spin it any way you want, but the words in Bishop's letter do not support that he was planning to "spice things up".  His exact words were adding "facts" that pertained to the trial which he was involved in.

.
"Spicing things up" are a direct quote from Bob Crockett, not from the letter.  And, that's a fact    Adding facts regarding something Bishop had first hand knowledge of is not "meddling".  I  have expressed that he had to rely on what was told to him by Lee (which is suspect), but I do not believe Bishop stated anywhere that he planned to "spiced things up".  If you have other statements by Bishop that do state this, I'll look at them,

And again, take this to another thread if you want to pursue it as I do not wish to derail this thread.  If you have a response, please start a separate thread..

.

Edited April 13, 2016 by ALarson

[Russell C McGregor]

1 minute ago, salgare said:

It's simple Russell, publicly answer the questions I've put to you and then ask Mark and Robert to do the same.  There is nothing to hide here right?

As I have tried to explain to you: you have the right, under the rules of this forum, to ask me questions about what I assert.

You have no right, either in the rules of this forum, in ordinary netiquette, or in equity, to start interrogating me about matters on which I have said nothing.

Your attempts to interrogate me about some "Givens movement" are arrogant, hostile, and are approaching harassment.

So I suggest you stop.

But feel free to provide documentation for whatever "Givens movement" you think exists.

Yes Sal, this is a CFR.

 

[ALarson]

7 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

Also, the different editions of the book show clear indications of Bishop's meddling.

The second edition, as Hugh Nibley demonstrated, has the word "danite" sprinkled through it like cinnamon on toast, where the first hardly mentions danites at all. That, you see, is what Bishop thought "facts" should look like.

 

CFR  (I'd like to see the quotes and the difference in the 2 edition including the addition of the word "Danite" that wasn't in the 1st edition.  Thanks)

And, are you stating that the Danites did not really exist?

.

Edited April 13, 2016 by ALarson

[Russell C McGregor]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

CFR  (I'd like to see the quotes and the difference in the 2 edition including the addition of the word "Danite" that wasn't in the 1st edition.  Thanks)

And, are you stating that the Danites did not really exist?

.

For the first part, I'll look up some examples and get back to you.

For the second: not in 1850's to 1870's Utah, they didn't. They were a Missouri phenomenon.

 

[salgare]

2 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

But feel free to provide documentation for whatever "Givens movement" you think exists.

Yes Sal, this is a CFR.

In keeping the labeling/evolution correct:  nuanced moved to what Julliann called " We have those who expect accommodation of modern enlightenment" to what I coined for simpler usage as Givens movement  which you pointed out to me that a better adjective would be Givens underground.

I have stated in two or three posts over the last several days that this is simply my conclusion, my observation, my opinion.

Here is one such example:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67331-a-different-god/?do=findComment&comment=1209612664

Note in that post states my conclusion as well as providing the links leading up to my personal conclusion, observation and opinion.

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

So the fact that there's no evidence for a "Givens movement" proves that there really is such a thing?

Because if it wasn't a thing, then they wouldn't be trying so hard to hide the evidence, right?

 

In case there was any doubt, there IS no "Givens Movement".

The assertion is absurd.

Some here appear to be delusional, and never understood what they keep calling "orthodoxy".  Sad stuff. This is on the level of black helicopter conspiracies, where every denial simpoy proves their truth.

It is completely twisted.

I am now seeing this as personal ad-hominem attacks, and intend to start reporting them to the mods.

[Russell C McGregor]

10 minutes ago, salgare said:

In keeping the labeling/evolution correct:  nuanced moved to what Julliann called " We have those who expect accommodation of modern enlightenment" to what I coined for simpler usage as Givens movement  which you pointed out to me that a better adjective would be Givens underground.

 

No.

As you perfectly well know, I did not.

Kindly refrain from trying to foist your utterly counterfactual abominations upon me.

Thankyouverymuch.

10 minutes ago, salgare said:

I have stated in two or three posts over the last several days that this is simply my conclusion, my observation, my opinion.

Here is one such example:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67331-a-different-god/?do=findComment&comment=1209612664

Note in that post states my conclusion as well as providing the links leading up to my personal conclusion, observation and opinion.

Which you are fully entitled to hold.

But for which you are not entitled to demand explanations or responses from me or anyone else, for that matter.

My integrity -- a subject about which you know absolutely nothing -- bears no relationship to my willingness to be interrogated by you about your own absurd and sub-rational conspiracy theories.

Claiming that it does is offensive, slanderous and false.

Do I make myself clear?

 

[mfbukowski]

So I quote one of the most respected scholars in the church, Teryl Givens, and that makes me part of a plot to overthrow the church.

Paranoid ad-hominem ravings.

[ALarson]

11 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

For the first part, I'll look up some examples and get back to you.

Thank you for doing that as I really would like to see if there was not much mention of the Danites in the 1st edition of Bishop's book.  I think I actually may have a copy of the book somewhere and I'll look to see if I can find it (I don't know which edition it is).

11 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

For the second: not in 1850's to 1870's Utah, they didn't. They were a Missouri phenomenon.

There are a lot of statements regarding the Danites being out in Utah too.  I believe even Brigham Young mentioned them at least once, iirc.  

I don't believe all the stories told about this group, but I think it's naive to believe they ceased to exist after Missouri.

.

Edited April 13, 2016 by ALarson

[salgare]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

So I quote one of the most respected scholars in the church, Teryl Givens, and that makes me part of a plot to overthrow the church.

Paranoid ad-hominem ravings.

Why must you resort to calling me full of "Paranoid ad-hominem ravings" instead of simply addressing those statements?

The documentation links and statement of my reasoning for my conclusions on this issue are clearly laid out here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67331-a-different-god/?do=findComment&comment=1209612664

Feel free to address the actual issues and conclusions that I'm bringing up.

Edited April 13, 2016 by salgare

[salgare]

8 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

No.

As you perfectly well know, I did not.

Kindly refrain from trying to foist your utterly counterfactual abominations upon me.

Thankyouverymuch.

Which you are fully entitled to hold.

But for which you are not entitled to demand explanations or responses from me or anyone else, for that matter.

My integrity -- a subject about which you know absolutely nothing -- bears no relationship to my willingness to be interrogated by you about your own absurd and sub-rational conspiracy theories.

Claiming that it does is offensive, slanderous and false.

Do I make myself clear?

 

yes I'm clear

[ALarson]

Dup

Edited April 13, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

19 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

The second edition, as Hugh Nibley demonstrated, has the word "danite" sprinkled through it like cinnamon on toast, where the first hardly mentions danites at all. That, you see, is what Bishop thought "facts" should look like.

Here's a link to an online copy of the book (the 1877 edition which would have been the 1st edition):

https://archive.org/stream/mormonismunveile00leej#page/n7/mode/2up

Doing a search for the words "Danite" and "Danites", the results are that they were each used at least 15 times (30 or more total times...it's difficult to see all of them the way it comes up on my computer, so I just counted the ones I could definitely see.)

Do you consider 30 times "hardly" mentioning the Danites?

I can't locate a 2nd edition of this book online for comparison.  Do you know when the 2nd edition was published?

.

Edited April 13, 2016 by ALarson

[Anakin7]

On April 12, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Jim Stiles said:

Grace after all that you can do is works salvation.  Grace is not applied until the works is done.  2 Nephi 25:23 is simply the old Covenant of Works, which is no salvation whatsoever.

No one ever does all that they can do; to say otherwise is a wicked, impious lie.  If Adam and Eve had followed the one simple rule, then they would have been saved.  They (and by extension, we) did not, so another plan was needed.

      Jim Stiles as with all other LDS critics who present this polemic against us you are not understanding our True Salvation Soteriological understanding and meaning of 2 Nephi 25:23 which is Saintly, Christian,Biblical. Once again I ask you again to read 2 Nephi  25:23 in context as to its surrounding verses. Once again it is not a self centered/righteous personal salvation/soteriological form/model but a Love/Belief/Faith/New Covenant  [Jeremiah 31:31-34 ] of Obedience form/model. The LORD of Life/Lord/Redeemer/Savior/God/King/Master Christ Jesus commandments  are written in our Hearts/Minds that is why we do them. It is The New Covenant that we follow in our lives that we are taught by the Lord to do, not your accusing [of us of old covenant theology] with your fiery arrows and darts which are repelled by our Full armor of God, Buckled around our waist with The Belt of Truth,The Breastplate of Righteousness, with our feet fitted with readiness that comes with the Gospel of Peace, Our Shield of Faith, our Helmet of Salvation, The Sword of The Spirit - Ephesians 6:13-18. May you obtain True Grace by way of True Faith.

Washing My Robes In The Blood Of The Lamb

Counting The Cost To Follow Him

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

 

 

Edited April 14, 2016 by Anakin7

[mfbukowski]

On 4/11/2016 at 0:30 AM, Bernard Gui said:

Well, no. This is a deceptive and simplistic view meant to cast the Church in some sort of regressive, fearful, bad light..trivializing real anti-Mormonism and blaming the victims.

To me, anti-Mormons are people who intend to do harm to Mormons. 

For example, when my father joined the Church, a co-worker bullied him relentlessly for becoming Mormon until he finally struck the man and was fired. A Missionary Baptist friend was told by her father/pastor not to pray about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. If she did, he said, Satan would answer her prayers, because Mormons are Satanic. In Tennessee, my great-grandfather's home was burned and two Mormon missionaries in the area were killed by an anti-Mormon mob. In the school where I taught, Young Life members compiled a list of Mormon kids to deliver from Mormonism. My son was singled out and visited by some students and their youth pastor to free him from our cult. One of them wrote me a letter with some anti-Mormon rhetoric asking me how I could be so stupid to be a Mormon. I graded it for grammar and spelling and sent it to her parents. On a local Seattle Christian radio talk show, an internationally-known anti-Mormon agitator accused Mormons of hoarding guns and ammunition and plotting to take over the US government. Anti- and former-Mormon Ed Decker paraded around our stake's booth at the Washington State Fair in our sacred temple clothing and challenged passers-by to ask us to explain what he was wearing. At a General Conference in SLC, anti-Mormons dragged the temple garments and Books of Mormon through the street gutters in view of conference attendees. I watched Christian youth ministries arrive by the busloads at the Mormon pageant in Manti, Utah, and surround and isolate Mormon young people, shouting questions at them and blocking their entrance into the pageant. On this discussion board, members took on the author of an appalling but popular anti-Mormon book, pointing out error after error, lie after lie. The purpose of the book? To warn Americans what their country would look like under "Mormon control."

Most anti-Mormonism today comes from our own members who wish to remake the Church in their image. So they sensationalize their grievances, seek publicity, and use public outrage, shaming, and mob action to get their way. One particularly egregious activity is to ridicule current Church leaders, trying to create mistrust and divisions within the Church. 

 

14 rep points and counting.

For those who want to know how the Mormons feel on this board, I would suggest this is a good measure.  Hard evidence- a virtual "poll" of the feelings here.

  Of course we know that not all Evangelicals are like this- many on this board are kind and seeking more information, most are not and are here to "testify" of our errors, and that is what we expect, so apologies to those honest souls here who feel that anti-Evangelical prejudice here.  I am afraid I tend to take that position myself.  But the hard feelings persist.  If this is what it is to be "Christian" you can count me out.

And Mouw suggests we are about to become like those typical Evangelicals?

Uh, I don't think so.  The history is too long and too rancorous.  What is convincing is that we ALL have had similar experiences.  Some suggest that we have a "persecution complex".  Try being a faithful and forthright LDS and see for yourself.  I lose clients all the time if I dare mention the church.

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, cdowis said:

We appreciate that you share your particular beliefs here on this forum of those outside the church.  We accept and believe in ALL the Word of God, including the Bible and modern revelation and see things differently.

It would be safe to say that we disagree with every sentence in  your post above, but I'm sure you already know that.

You are so kind!  I would say some here appreciate his presence more than others.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Thank you for doing that as I really would like to see if there was not much mention of the Danites in the 1st edition of Bishop's book.  I think I actually may have a copy of the book somewhere and I'll look to see if I can find it (I don't know which edition it is).

There are a lot of statements regarding the Danites being out in Utah too.  I believe even Brigham Young mentioned them at least once, iirc.  

I don't believe all the stories told about this group, but I think it's naive to believe they ceased to exist after Missouri.

.

Russell is correct. The Danites were a group that was formed during the period of the Mormon war in Missouri. They were disbanded by the time of the Nauvoo period.

Slanderous and libelous rumors about the Danites continued to circulate thereafter in anti-Mormon statements, but that's all they were: slanderous and libelous rumors.

Edited to add:

I suggest you go here to Encyclopedia of Mormonism for a concise and reliable history of the Danites, including these paragraphs:

Quote

 

Though no Danite organization was known in Nauvoo or in Utah, the stereotype persisted, becoming a part of national discussion about Utah and the Latter-day Saints and for decades a staple of dime novels (see Mormons, Image of: Fiction). By 1900 at least fifty novels had been published in English using the Avard-type Danite to develop story lines of murder, pillage, and conspiracy against common citizens. Arthur Conan Doyle (A Study in Scarlet ) created Sherlock Holmes to solve a murder committed by Danites. Zane Grey (Riders of the Purple Sage ) and Robert Louis Stevenson (The Dynamiter ) were among the authors who found the image of the evil Danites well suited for popular reading audiences who delighted in sensationalism (Cornwall and Arrington). The image became so pervasive that few readers were willing to question the accuracy of such portrayals. ...

The reality, then, behind the supposed secretive, lawless Danites of legend was this renegade band formed briefly in 1838 in the midst of war. There is no evidence of any such band later, and even in 1838, the Latter-day Saint community as a whole did not deserve blame for the unauthorized actions of a few. As Parley P. Pratt, an apostle, wrote to his family after hearing Avard's court testimony, "They accuse us of things that never entered into our hearts." From Liberty Jail on December 16, 1838, Joseph Smith summarized the situation as he then understood it: "We have learned also since we have been in prison that many false and pernicious things which were calculated to lead the saints far astray and to do great injury have been taught by Dr. Avard as coming from the Presidency…which the presidency never knew of being taught in the church by any body untill after they were made prisoners…the presidency were ignorant as well as innocent of these things" (PWJS, p. 380).

Unfortunately, in an age when Latter-day Saints were hated and persecuted, Avard's story provided a ready explanation for anyone who wanted to believe the worst. The reality was far less sensational.

 

 

Edited April 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Russell is correct. The Danites were a group that was formed during the period of the Mormon war in Missouri. They were disbanded by the time of the Nauvoo period.

If that is what you choose to believe, that's fine.  I've read too many statements by too many members and other witnesses who lived in Utah that gives reason to at least suspect they still existed in Utah. If you choose to believe these were all  liars, that's also fine.  I think it's naive, though.  Even Brigham Young mentioned them at one time (I'll try to find that as I remember reading it).

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, salgare said:

Why must you resort to calling me full of "Paranoid ad-hominem ravings" instead of simply addressing those statements?

The documentation links and statement of my reasoning for my conclusions on this issue are clearly laid out here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/67331-a-different-god/?do=findComment&comment=1209612664

Feel free to address the actual issues and conclusions that I'm bringing up.

Address paranoid ad hominem ravings interpreting what I know perfectly well I wrote? I need a reference to know what I wrote?

No, I do not have difficulties with short term memory, nor do I have dementia.  I can even remember what I had for breakfast yesterday, and the names of all my children.

No thanks.

I am no longer feeding the troll.

Edited April 13, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Here's a link to an online copy of the book (the 1877 edition which would have been the 1st edition):

https://archive.org/stream/mormonismunveile00leej#page/n7/mode/2up

Doing a search for the words "Danite" and "Danites", the results are that they were each used at least 15 times (30 or more total times...it's difficult to see all of them the way it comes up on my computer, so I just counted the ones I could definitely see.)

Do you consider 30 times "hardly" mentioning the Danites?

I can't locate a 2nd edition of this book online for comparison.  Do you know when the 2nd edition was published?

.

Since there was never any such thing as a Danite band in Utah, even one reference to it in the context of the Utah period of Church history detracts from the credibility of Bishop's published version of Lee's memoirs and confirms the impression of it being an inflammatory and sensationalistic rendition designed to sell books by exacerbating public prejudice.

 

Edited April 13, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Since there was never any such thing as a Danite band in Utah, even one reference to it in the context of the Utah period detracts from the credibility of Bishop's published version of Lee's memoirs.

You don't know this (that "there was never any such thing as a Danite band in Utah").  How much reading have you even done on this topic?  I have to wonder.

Believe what you want, but you might want to try doing some of your own research on this topic.  If you don't want to, that's ok too.

But after much reading on this myself, I came to the conclusion that there are just too many statements by too many members (and other witnesses) to not at least suspect that this group still existed in Utah.  I did take who the sources were into account and I do believe there are exaggerations too.  But again, for you to definitively state that they did not exist is naive, IMO.  I also get that's what you want to believe.

.

Edited April 13, 2016 by ALarson