Spider-Man Has Left the Church

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I had taken your post to be referencing Helen Mar Kimball.  Whom were you referencing?

Thanks,

-Smac

Sorry, I meant his marriages generally, but can see the confusion because I responded specifically to what stargazer posted about his step-mother.  Glad it’s clarified now.

I am interested to see cdavis’s response to the CFR issued!  

Edited August 29, 2018 by JulieM

[smac97]

1 minute ago, JulieM said:

Sorry, I meant his marriages generally, but can see the confusion because I responded specifically to what stargazer posted about is step-mother.  Glad it’s clarified now.

I am interested to see cdavis’s response to the CFR issued!  

No apology necessary.  The error was mine.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

"By mixing a little truth with it they had made their lie far stronger."

That, I think, typifies the approach to LDS doctrine and history taken by the likes of Runnells.

And, many members believe this is what has been done by church leaders in the past (lots of omissions or wrong impressions given when relating church history events or details). 

Probably with some justification.  But two wrongs don't make a right.  Runnells cannot justify his misconduct with tu quoque excuses.

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

When members read the information in the CES letter, many feel they've been lied to at least by omission regarding many issues presented in the letter.

Yes, I see that.  

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm one who believes each member is responsible to do their own reading and research, but I do understand why many feel this way when they get a closer look regarding the details that have been left out over the years in lessons, etc.  I think there's plenty of blame to go around and don't really like playing the "blame game" myself.  However, it does not change the fact that many feel this way regarding the church leaders after learning more from reading the letter (and other sources).

I hope we're both  more interested in figuring out where to go from here.  

Jeremy Runnells is actively seeking to destroy the faith of our brothers and sisters.  I don't like that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[phaedrus ut]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Jeremy Runnells is actively seeking to destroy the faith of our brothers and sisters.  I don't like that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Couldn't a Catholic use the same justifications against Mormon missionaries in their community?  I'm sure Jeremy has been critical of the LDS church but I don't think he's ever called it the "whore of all the earth".  

Phaedrus 

 

[cdowis]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

And, your claims that Emma knew about all of Joseph's polygamous marriages at the time is flat out untrue.  

You did not read my post, so read it carefully before calling me a liar.

[ignore mode turned on]

[cdowis]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

CFR. If that's the case, the second marriage ceremonies for the Partridge sisters make no sense. They went through a second ceremony precisely because Emma consented, not knowing that Joseph had already married them (and consummated the marriages). 

K, here is the CFR.

"It SEEMS that "  Please note that "seems" is the subjunctive mood (I suggest that you look it up as to what that implies)

I am quoting myself..... my own conclusion..... my personal opinion......   Here is the link  
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70952-spider-man-has-left-the-church/?page=5&tab=comments#comment-1209847799

Do you want a notarized statement, or is this sufficient.

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by cdowis

[ALarson]

cdavis, you stated:

"She was very aware of  his polygamous marriages, which she initially gave her permission,  but it later caused dissention between."

That is not true regarding Joseph's "polygamous marriages".  Emma gave permission for a very few, but not for all of them and was not aware of them at the time they took place.  Care to clarify if you've misspoken?  (I understand when that happens.).

You also stated:

"It seems that they came to an agreement not to announce his new marriages for the sake of their relationship."

And there is a CFR issued for you regarding this.

"[ignore mode turned on]"

 Hilarious.  Well, that's one way to avoid owning up to having made a false statement, I guess.  

Edited August 29, 2018 by ALarson

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Meh.  I can conclude that a person has stated an untruth, or acted in bad faith, etc., and yet still abstain from judging his soul or his overall worthiness before God.

Thanks,

-Smac

From my seat, making conclusions about his sincerity and motives are equivalent to making judgments on his heart, mind, and soul.

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Meh.  I can conclude that a person has stated an untruth, or acted in bad faith, etc., and yet still abstain from judging his soul or his overall worthiness before God.

Thanks,

-Smac

Coming from someone who is either very generous or very naive.  I have most generously redacted out his name to avoid shaming him.

Edited August 29, 2018 by cdowis

[jkwilliams]

50 minutes ago, cdowis said:

K, here is the CFR.

"It SEEMS that "  Please note that "seems" is the subjunctive mood (I suggest that you look it up as to what that implies)

I am quoting myself..... my own conclusion..... my personal opinion......   Here is the link  
http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70952-spider-man-has-left-the-church/?page=5&tab=comments#comment-1209847799

Do you want a notarized statement, or is this sufficient.

I'm just wondering what leads you to conclude that. There's nothing in the documentary evidence that suggests they reached some kind of understanding.

[Thinking]

On 8/28/2018 at 12:47 PM, smac97 said:

I am not afraid of, nor do I object to, reasoned and principled disagreements with or criticisms of my faith.  But the CES letter is not that.  Not even close.  It's just a mélange of complaints and criticisms culled from online sources and with a question mark added to the end of each one.  

It's not even an "argument."  There is no reasoning.  No effort to persuade.  No attempt to address the huge amount of scholarly and apologetic information that was readily available to him.  It's just a bashfest from start to finish. 

Have you forgotten that the CES letter was, well...a letter? It evolved into what it is now. If you were the CES director who received the letter, would you dismiss it because it wasn't written well enough to appear in scholarly journals?

I have found that sometimes when a question is asked, an apologist will attack the quality of the presentation rather than the substance. I don't believe that one needs to be a professional to ask a valid question.

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Have you forgotten that the CES letter was, well...a letter?

No, it wasn't.  It was styled as a letter addressed to a CES director, but it wasn't.  Not really.  It's an anti-Mormon screed.  It's a copy-and-paste job.  It is devoid of substantive or meaningful or reasoned analysis.

2 minutes ago, Thinking said:

It evolved into what it is now.

As I understand it, the original was what - 80 pages long?  With dozens, even hundreds, of criticisms/complaints styled as "questions"?

2 minutes ago, Thinking said:

If you were the CES director who received the letter, would you dismiss it because it wasn't written well enough to appear in scholarly journals?

No.  But nor would I have treated it as a good faith effort to address problematic aspects of the Church's history and doctrine.

'Cuz it ain't.

2 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I have found that sometimes when a question is asked, an apologist will attack the quality of the presentation rather than the substance.

There is no "substance" to attack.  There is no reasoning.  No thought.  No analysis.  No research.  Just a massive copy-and-paste job, interspersed with complaints and accusations.

2 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I don't believe that one needs to be a professional to ask a valid question.

I quite agree.

Thanks,

-Smac

[jkwilliams]

12 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Have you forgotten that the CES letter was, well...a letter? It evolved into what it is now. If you were the CES director who received the letter, would you dismiss it because it wasn't written well enough to appear in scholarly journals?

I have found that sometimes when a question is asked, an apologist will attack the quality of the presentation rather than the substance. I don't believe that one needs to be a professional to ask a valid question.

A lot of people I know have said the same thing: they find a problematic issue and decide to study it out (usually assuming it was bogus). Rather than resolve the issue, they keep finding more problematic issues, and the more they try to resolve them, the more problems they find. If you ask an apostate what was the trigger for them leaving, they'll usually tell you the first issue, not because it on its own was conclusive, but because it led to so much more. If you were to ask most exmos to make a list of the problems they see, they would probably come up with something like the CES letter. Because there are just that many problems. I would not have written something like the CES letter, but if I had to make a list of all the issues, I'm sure it would be at least 80 pages long. 

Again, it comes back to this: if it's so crude and pasted together and poorly reasoned, why has it had such an impact? Are church members just really stupid to fall for something as ham-fisted as that? 

[cdowis]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I'm just wondering what leads you to conclude that. There's nothing in the documentary evidence that suggests they reached some kind of understanding.

Shrug........I have no interest in explaining myself to you other than pointing out that I have had a 45 year marriage relationship with the same person/

You'll figure it out some day.

Edited August 29, 2018 by cdowis

[JAHS]

The CES reference has been removed from the comic:

Following the discovery of references to the anti-Mormon book CES Letter in artwork for the most recent issue of the Amazing Spider-Man comic book series, Marvel Entertainment and artist Ryan Ottley have revised artwork that will appear in subsequent editions of the issue.

In the issue, Ottley originally included an image of Spider-Man wearing a patch referencing CES Letter, a book written by former Latter-day Saint Jeremy Runnells in which he explores what he describes as the “troubling origins, history, and practices” of the Mormon faith. Future uses of the artwork, whether in digital release or reprinting, as well as collected editions, will feature revised artwork that removes the reference, as well as Ottley’s other original images and logos. 

“The art reference in Amazing Spider-Man #4 was included without awareness by Marvel of its meaning," Marvel told The Hollywood Reporter in a statement. "As a policy, Marvel does not permit hidden controversial messages in its artwork. The reference will be removed from all subsequent printings, digital versions, and trade paperbacks.”

Additionally, THR was given a statement from Ottley.

“I’ve spoken with Marvel about my recent artwork, and I have no animosity toward members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” he said. “My entire family are members, as are many of my friends, and I would never include anything mean-spirited about them or their beliefs. The reference was in regards to a subject I am interested in and a personal decision I made in my life. It has nothing to do with the character, the story, or Marvel.”

Marvel Removes Anti-Mormon Reference from 'Amazing Spider-Man' Comic

Edited August 29, 2018 by JAHS

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I have zero interest in explaining myself to you other than pointing out that I have 45 years of a marriage relationship with the same person/

That's fine. I just find it odd to make conclusions based on nothing. 

[smac97]

Anyhoo, getting back to the topic of this thread...

It looks like Marvel has taken corrective action:

Quote

AUGUST 29, 2018 12:47pm PT by Graeme McMillan
Marvel Removes Anti-Mormon Reference from 'Amazing Spider-Man' Comic

Marvel updates artwork to remove a reference to a book that questioned the origins of Mormonism.

Following the discovery of references to the anti-Mormon book CES Letter in artwork for the most recent issue of the Amazing Spider-Man comic book series, Marvel Entertainment and artist Ryan Ottley have revised artwork that will appear in subsequent editions of the issue.

In the issue, Ottley originally included an image of Spider-Man wearing a patch referencing CES Letter, a book written by former Latter-day Saint Jeremy Runnells in which he explores what he describes as the “troubling origins, history, and practices” of the Mormon faith. Future uses of the artwork, whether in digital release or reprinting, as well as collected editions, will feature revised artwork that removes the reference, as well as Ottley’s other original images and logos. 

“The art reference in Amazing Spider-Man #4 was included without awareness by Marvel of its meaning," Marvel told The Hollywood Reporter in a statement. "As a policy, Marvel does not permit hidden controversial messages in its artwork. The reference will be removed from all subsequent printings, digital versions, and trade paperbacks.”

Additionally, THR was given a statement from Ottley.

“I’ve spoken with Marvel about my recent artwork, and I have no animosity toward members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” he said. “My entire family are members, as are many of my friends, and I would never include anything mean-spirited about them or their beliefs. The reference was in regards to a subject I am interested in and a personal decision I made in my life. It has nothing to do with the character, the story, or Marvel.”

Hmm.  Ottley has deleted his Reddit account.  He has some residual comments saved here, but none seem vindictive or hostile.  He has a few scattered remarks here and there on Reddit (I won't bother with links) that are sort of disrespectful, but not vitriolic.  Just standard stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

[cdowis]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Anyhoo, getting back to the topic of this thread...

It looks like Marvel has taken corrective action:

Hmm.  Ottley has deleted his Reddit account.  He has some residual comments saved here, but none seem vindictive or hostile.  He has a few scattered remarks here and there on Reddit (I won't bother with links) that are sort of disrespectful, but not vitriolic.  Just standard stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

As we say in the South, he had a coming to Jesus moment.

Any meeting in which a frank, often unpleasant, conversation is held so as to bring to light and/or resolve some issue at hand.

 

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by cdowis

[USU78]

57 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The CES reference has been removed from the comic:

Following the discovery of references to the anti-Mormon book CES Letter in artwork for the most recent issue of the Amazing Spider-Man comic book series, Marvel Entertainment and artist Ryan Ottley have revised artwork that will appear in subsequent editions of the issue.

In the issue, Ottley originally included an image of Spider-Man wearing a patch referencing CES Letter, a book written by former Latter-day Saint Jeremy Runnells in which he explores what he describes as the “troubling origins, history, and practices” of the Mormon faith. Future uses of the artwork, whether in digital release or reprinting, as well as collected editions, will feature revised artwork that removes the reference, as well as Ottley’s other original images and logos. 

“The art reference in Amazing Spider-Man #4 was included without awareness by Marvel of its meaning," Marvel told The Hollywood Reporter in a statement. "As a policy, Marvel does not permit hidden controversial messages in its artwork. The reference will be removed from all subsequent printings, digital versions, and trade paperbacks.”

Additionally, THR was given a statement from Ottley.

“I’ve spoken with Marvel about my recent artwork, and I have no animosity toward members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” he said. “My entire family are members, as are many of my friends, and I would never include anything mean-spirited about them or their beliefs. The reference was in regards to a subject I am interested in and a personal decision I made in my life. It has nothing to do with the character, the story, or Marvel.”

Marvel Removes Anti-Mormon Reference from 'Amazing Spider-Man' Comic

Looks like an admission that the CES Letter inclusion was gratuitous.  Perhaps that it was both off-putting and inconsistent with Marvel's policies.

[jkwilliams]

33 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Looks like an admission that the CES Letter inclusion was gratuitous.  Perhaps that it was both off-putting and inconsistent with Marvel's policies.

Of course it was gratuitous. I’m sure Marvel doesn’t enjoy gratuitous controversy, hence the removal. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Avatar4321]

20 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Personal experience.

I have a hard time believing that a Saint can go the temple on Saturday with a difficult issue and leave having heard the voice of God both give clarity and speak peace; visit a sick elderly sister on Sunday after church, give her a priesthood blessing and see her immediately improve; invite the Elders around on Monday to teach a friend at FHE and see that the lesson they've prepared is exactly that this person needed to hear; spend some time Tuesday morning preparing for an upcoming lesson and be filled with revelation about what to teach and how to teach it; receive a quiet impression during work on Wednesday of who needs a visit that evening and then find himself in the very place he needed to be; spend much of Thursday seeking forgiveness for a mistake made earlier that morning only to feel the burden of sin completely lifted; pick up the Book of Mormon on Friday and read a passage that alters perceptions of what is most real; and then read the CES Letter on Saturday and conclude that none of what just happened is real.

i don't think they experience that.

i wish we all did

[Stargazer]

8 hours ago, JulieM said:

 That your stepmother got married at 14, is beside the point.  

Well, no, it's not. The only reason age 14 is mentioned in this case is for shock value, not for any pertinent question of morality. I bring up my stepmother to illustrate a point. Which is to soften or counter the faux outrage regading this aspect of the matter. Even in our so-called modern era girls of age 14 are sometimes legally able to give consent to marriage, depending upon jurisdiction, and other factors. 

The matter of Joseph's plural marriage is sufficiently controversial without dragging specious objections into it.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Anyhoo, getting back to the topic of this thread...

It looks like Marvel has taken corrective action:

Hmm.  Ottley has deleted his Reddit account.  He has some residual comments saved here, but none seem vindictive or hostile.  He has a few scattered remarks here and there on Reddit (I won't bother with links) that are sort of disrespectful, but not vitriolic.  Just standard stuff.

Thanks,

-Smac

Those who own a copy of the comic with the now-deleted item will own a collector's edition! Might be worth real money after many years! Depending upon how many got printed that is.

 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Stargazer

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, no, it's not. The only reason age 14 is mentioned in this case is for shock value, not for any pertinent question of morality. I bring up my stepmother to illustrate a point. Which is to soften or counter the faux outrage regading this aspect of the matter. Even in our so-called modern era girls of age 14 are sometimes legally able to give consent to marriage, depending upon jurisdiction, and other factors. 

The matter of Joseph's plural marriage is sufficiently controversial without dragging specious objections into it.

How common was it for a man in his late thirties to marry a 14 year old? Serious question. 

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, no, it's not. The only reason age 14 is mentioned in this case is for shock value, not for any pertinent question of morality. I bring up my stepmother to illustrate a point. Which is to soften or counter the faux outrage regading this aspect of the matter. Even in our so-called modern era girls of age 14 are sometimes legally able to give consent to marriage, depending upon jurisdiction, and other factors. 

The matter of Joseph's plural marriage is sufficiently controversial without dragging specious objections into it.

It’s already been mentioned that it’s not just that at least one of his wives was as young as 14 years old (like your step Mom was).  It’s that he was already legally married to one woman and married to dozens polygamously.  If the 14 year old was his only wife (his legal one as I’m assuming was the case with your Dad and step Mom), it would raise a few eyebrows but would be accepted and most would just move on.  And, that he married other teenage girls as well is part of it too.  It’s all the details combined, not just that he was married to one girl legally who was 14.  So it’s not real comparable to what your Dad did, IMO.