Anti-Mormon

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, consiglieri said:

This is the key question.

Most Mormons will accept faith-promoting stories on scant evidence, while rejecting non-faith-promoting stories on the same (or even better) evidence.

 

So, reading between the lines, I take it that you acknowledge there is scant, if any, evidence for the post-Missouri period existence of Danites.

[Russell C McGregor]

2 hours ago, consiglieri said:

Where were you when Russ said the same thing about my honesty?

BTW Consig, I'd like to thank you for vindicating me recently.

I got pinged by the mods for saying that you weren't arguing a good faith position, and you very nobly stepped forward to admit that you weren't.

And since that admission was an honest one, I was clearly wrong in what I said above. There are times when you can be honest.

What you failed to realise is that a claim of "personal revelation" that is not made in good faith does not "give the lie" to any LDS teaching anywhere. Latter-day Saints are still taught to sincerely seek personal revelation regarding instructions received from Church leaders, including apostles and prophets.

However, trolling is not sincere; and so, the number of people who have sincerely claimed to have received revelation contrary to the recent policy changes still stands at zero.

 

[ALarson]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Vlad the Impaler existed and he wasn't a myth; legendary vampires based on the history of Vlad the Impaler never existed, and they are a myth.

Missouri Danites existed and they weren't a myth; Utah Danites based on the history of Missouri Danites never existed, and they are a myth.

Get it now? I'm amazed I had to connect the dots for you on that.

There are no dots to connect.  You brought Vlad the Impaler into the discussion, not I.  Yes, Vlad actually existed (I've already stated this).  However, I'm not sure what that really has to do with the Danites, but you continue to bring him up in an attempt to make a connection to the Danites.

Why would you even think the two are connected or that just because Vlad actually existed (but vampires are a myth), then this proves that the Danites were a myth in Utah?   Why would one of those being true mean that the other must be true too?   (Anyway, the original comparison was between the "vampires in the Carpathian Mountains and about chupacabras along the Texas-Mexico border", but maybe you believe they exist or have existed at one time as well?)

Either way, I can't see how you believing that any of these groups may have existed. (or even if they did ever exist). having anything to do with the group most commonly known as the Danites. I've never stated here that I know 100% that these secret police (or whatever you want to refer to them as) existed in Utah.  If they did, I do not believe they were as organized as they were in Missouri. However, from everything I've read, I do believe there is enough evidence to at least lead me to suspect there was a group similar to the Danites in Utah for at least a few years.  You believe they did not exist after Missouri.  We disagree and that's fine.  You won't change my mind and I won't change yours.  

.

Edited April 15, 2016 by ALarson

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We are still left with the fact that Bishop said in private correspondence to Lee that he would be tampering with the text of Lee's memoirs before publication. And thus, the published memoirs are rendered forever unreliable as evidence of any complicity by Brigham Young in MMM.

The fact that Bishop is not responsible for the alterations and additions made by Lewis doesn't mean he never made any alterations or additions of his own.

Bishop did not write the 2nd book and from what I've seen, his name is not even on it as one of the authors (it was written by someone else 28 years after Bishop wrote his book).  So any changes that were made to the original book cannot be attributed to Bishop (even Russell confirms this).  So your repeated slurs against Bishop ended up being completely unsubstantiated once Russell located the 2nd book.

Here is what Bishop stated in his letter to Lee regarding what he desired to add to Lee's memoirs: "I will at once go to work preparing it for the press adding such facts connected with the trial and the history of the case as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public."  

I actually see no problem with Bishop adding facts regarding the trial and case, since he was Lee's attorney and had first hand knowledge of these facts. 

But, if you believe that quote from Bishop means that he would be "tampering" with Lee's memoirs, so be it.  However, I cannot see where he states that.  And, there most certainly is no evidence or any statements in this letter from Bishop that he planned to add  "things to spice things up" as was originally claimed here on this thread (and why I asked for the actual quote above).

We can go back and forth on this, but all we have is Bishop's letter stating that he wanted to add "facts", but nothing about tampering or spicing things up.  Do you have any other statements from Bishop that state he planned on doing this?  If so, I would really like to see them (and please supply the actual quote).

I agree that any information from Lee at that point in his life is suspect and I've stated that a few times in this thread.  I read Bishop's book with that in mind too.

As far as I'm concerned, there's not much more here to discuss.  We can continue rehashing things, but again, I'm not changing my mind and I'd imagine you are not changing yours either  

I completely respect your right to believe as you do and I sincerely mean that.

.

 

Edited April 15, 2016 by ALarson

[consiglieri]

11 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said:

BTW Consig, I'd like to thank you for vindicating me recently.

I got pinged by the mods for saying that you weren't arguing a good faith position, and you very nobly stepped forward to admit that you weren't.

And since that admission was an honest one, I was clearly wrong in what I said above. There are times when you can be honest.

What you failed to realise is that a claim of "personal revelation" that is not made in good faith does not "give the lie" to any LDS teaching anywhere. Latter-day Saints are still taught to sincerely seek personal revelation regarding instructions received from Church leaders, including apostles and prophets.

However, trolling is not sincere; and so, the number of people who have sincerely claimed to have received revelation contrary to the recent policy changes still stands at zero.

 

How is it you go off on jags like this, Russ?

My claims of personal revelation have always been made in good faith.

Now who's having the problem with honesty?

[consiglieri]

13 hours ago, Ahab said:

Somewhere on this planet,  but I didn't see that.

Would you like a green smoothie to help you feel better?  My wife says they are very good for me.

It is one of my vices to point out hypocrisy when I see it. 

 

Edited April 15, 2016 by consiglieri

[consiglieri]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So, reading between the lines, I take it that you acknowledge there is scant, if any, evidence for the post-Missouri period existence of Danites.

I honestly don't know enough about the subject to render an opinion, Scott.

I am only saying what is plainly evident--that Mormons will accept faith-promoting stories on scant evidence while rejecting non-faith-promoting stories supported by greater evidence.

[consiglieri]

15 hours ago, Ahab said:

Somewhere on this planet,  but I didn't see that.

 

Here I think you are fibbing, Ahab.

I asked you where you were when Russ said the same thing about my honesty.

 

You responded that you didn't see that.

But you had to see that.  Why?

Because Russ' one-line comment was quoted in the very same post as my comment.  It's on page 13 of this thread.

You responded with boos and hisses to my comment, but claim you didn't see Russ's comment?

I think you can understand why this strains credulity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, consiglieri said:

Here I think you are fibbing, Ahab.

I asked you where you were when Russ said the same thing about my honesty.

 

You responded that you didn't see that.

But you had to see that.  Why?

Because Russ' one-line comment was quoted in the very same post as my comment.  It's on page 13 of this thread.

You responded with boos and hisses to my comment, but claim you didn't see Russ's comment?

I think you can understand why this strains credulity.

Oh THAT comment!

I just didn't see that as an attack on your honesty.

We wouldn't want anyone to strain themselves to say anything honest or intelligent, would we?

I now withdraw my disdain at any of your comments, if I ever had any disdain. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, consiglieri said:

I honestly don't know enough about the subject to render an opinion, Scott.

I am only saying what is plainly evident--that Mormons will accept faith-promoting stories on scant evidence while rejecting non-faith-promoting stories supported by greater evidence.

So your remark was irrelevant to the conversation, then. You merely used the conversation as an occasion to make an off-topic dig against Mormons in general.

Which is fairly typical behavior for you.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[mfbukowski]

On 4/11/2016 at 9:45 PM, Steve Noel said:

The term "anti-Mormon" is used a lot on these message boards. How do you apply this term? Is it a broad term for all who reject LDS beliefs, or is it a specific term for certain kinds of opposition? 

Steve

I don't know if you are still following this thread, but there was a recent scholarly article relevant to the discussion, a book review by Stephen Smoot, of a new volume out.

 

Quote

 

Taylor Petrey, writing some four years ago during the height of the Mormon Moment, insightfully blogged on what he perceived is a fundamental problem facing public discourse on Mormonism. He writes,

The trotting out of apparently ridiculous Mormon ideas is evidence of just how little Americans really understand religion. Religious people of all stripes should be concerned with the way Mormonism is portrayed because it reveals the [Page 242]inability of people to ask the right kind of questions about religion and to discern how religious people construct their worlds. Discussion of Mormonism in the media tends to reveal the fundamentally unethical way that Americans think about religion, engaging in reductionism, decontextualization, and stereotyping.1

 

http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/mormonism-at-oxford-and-what-it-signifies/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+mormoninterpreter+%28Interpreter%3A+A+Journal+of+Mormon+Scripture+%28RSS%29%29

I think the attitude here is of importance to your understanding of Mormonism- notice the reference to "how religious people construct their worlds"

 

The notion that we construct our religious worlds is highly different obviously from the more traditional notion that our religious understanding comes out of the Bible, word for word

 

This is also relevant to the Mormon lack of "doctrine" which determines whether or not one is an "apostate"- the boundaries are vague and flexible depending on one's behavior, the boundary typically being teaching others one's own subjective views.  One can have the views, teaching views against church beliefs is a different story.  As long as one remains within the lifestyle practices in the temple recommend interview, one is free to "construct one's world"

 

Thought you might be interested in this short review which reveals so much about how we view anti-Mormonism AND our overall outlook on the world

 

Edited April 15, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Kevin Christensen]

On 4/15/2016 at 11:58 PM, ALarson said:

Bishop did not write the 2nd book and from what I've seen, his name is not even on it as one of the authors (it was written by someone else 28 years after Bishop wrote his book).  So any changes that were made to the original book cannot be attributed to Bishop (even Russell confirms this).  So your repeated slurs against Bishop ended up being completely unsubstantiated once Russell located the 2nd book.

Here is what Bishop stated in his letter to Lee regarding what he desired to add to Lee's memoirs: "I will at once go to work preparing it for the press adding such facts connected with the trial and the history of the case as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public."  

I actually see no problem with Bishop adding facts regarding the trial and case, since he was Lee's attorney and had first hand knowledge of these facts. 

But, if you believe that quote from Bishop means that he would be "tampering" with Lee's memoirs, so be it.  However, I cannot see where he states that.  And, there most certainly is no evidence or any statements in this letter from Bishop that he planned to add  "things to spice things up" as was originally claimed here on this thread (and why I asked for the actual quote above).

We can go back and forth on this, but all we have is Bishop's letter stating that he wanted to add "facts", but nothing about tampering or spicing things up.  Do you have any other statements from Bishop that state he planned on doing this?  If so, I would really like to see them (and please supply the actual quote).

I agree that any information from Lee at that point in his life is suspect and I've stated that a few times in this thread.  I read Bishop's book with that in mind too.

As far as I'm concerned, there's not much more here to discuss.  We can continue rehashing things, but again, I'm not changing my mind and I'd imagine you are not changing yours either  

I completely respect your right to believe as you do and I sincerely mean that.

.

 

See Richard Turley Jr., "Problems with Mountain Meadows Massacre Sources" in BYU Studies 47/3 (2008).  

https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/BYUStudies/article/view/7508

"Several Lee confessions exist in addition to the one in Mormonism Unveiled, none of which is entirely reliable. Careful comparison of the confessions shows progressive embelishment, cuklminating in Mormonism Unveiled. " (149)

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA 

[ALarson]

12 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

"Several Lee confessions exist in addition to the one in Mormonism Unveiled, none of which is entirely reliable. Careful comparison of the confessions shows progressive embelishment, cuklminating in Mormonism Unveiled. " (149)

Yes, I think we all agree that Lee is not a reliable source and that his statements are suspect (especially toward the end as you state above).

But this discussion was regarding a claim by someone that Bishop (Lee's attorney) had made a statement that he planned to add things "to spice things up" and he never did make that statement (at least not in the source that was given).

The accusation was also made that Bishop embellished and added things to the 2nd edition of his book, when a closer look revealed that Bishop did not even write the 2nd book (it was written by someone else 28 years later).

Thread closed on this positive note following too much personal sniping..