Church purchases Kirtland Temple, other historic buildings and artifacts from Community of Christ

[smac97]

40 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

And yet you are citing it as a reason to remain unconcerned and unbothered. 

I have said nothing about being or remaining "unconcerned and unbothered."

Thanks,

Smac

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

And yet you are citing it as a reason to remain unconcerned and unbothered. 

What can he do to change Brigham Young’s behaviour to Emma?  I am not certain what you want from people. Nothing we do now can change that relationship.  Only what is happening between them and God can change that past relationship into a present friendship hopefully.

[Smiley McGee]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I have said nothing about being or remaining "unconcerned and unbothered."

Thanks,

Smac

Also you:

Quote

I'm content to leave the dispute to them and the Lord.

 

[Smiley McGee]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

What can he do to change Brigham Young’s behaviour to Emma?  I am not certain what you want from people. Nothing we do now can change that relationship.  Only what is happening between them and God can change that past relationship into a present friendship hopefully.

Don't be foolish. This discussion is about justification, consistency and moral frameworks in the here and now. That events occurred in the past is incidental. We could just as easily use a more current event to address similar issues. The fact that we don't control something doesn't mean it isn't useful for investigation and discussion. I can't control what's happening in Gaza; perhaps I should respond to criticism of any party to the conflict with "I can't change anything, so I'm content to leave the matter to the Lord."

Edited March 8, 2024 by Smiley McGee

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

This discussion is about justification, consistency and moral frameworks in the here and now. That events occurred in the past is incidental

You have lost me. Maybe you have skipped a few steps in your reasoning assuming we would follow it?

Talking about a specific event in the past does not automatically generalize to current events.  And accepting one is not able to change something in the past does not assume one can’t change something in the here and now.

Especially given Brigham and Emma are in the Spirit world or resurrected and we have no clue how they are interacting now, it seems odd to insist we make judgments about the current state of their relationship rather than leaving the afterlife to the oversight of God.  That appears to me to be what Smac has focused on when he said they will sort it out.

Now if someone started mistreating Smac’s family in the afterlife, that comment might be relevant, but not seeing the connection to being content with God handling post mortality with what we should be focusing on in mortality.

Edited March 8, 2024 by Calm

[Teancum]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Mormon 9:31 kicks in a lot for me these days, particularly when the flaws and errors of notable historical figures are under discussion.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Good for you.  Do you  extend the same courtesy to other disreputable characters from that human history is littered with?

Edited March 8, 2024 by Teancum

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Good for you.  Do you  extend the same courtesy to other disreputable characters from that human history is littered with?

It would probably depend on what you mean by disreputable.  Some historical figures are universally disliked while others have a much more nuanced reputation.  Gandhi and Mother Theresa might be good examples of historical people that are both loved and hated depending on who you are talking to.

Just because someone doesn’t like BY doesn’t mean it’s unreasonable for others to feel differently.

Edited March 8, 2024 by bluebell

[Teancum]

Just now, bluebell said:

It would probably depend on what you mean by disreputable.  Some historical figures are universally disliked while others have a much more nuanced reputation.  Gandhi and Mother Theresa might be good examples of historical people that are both loved and hated depending on who you are talking to.

I am sure there are people out there that admire many controversial historical figures that seem to have been fairly despicable.

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am sure there are people out there that admire many controversial historical figures that seem to have been fairly despicable.

And some who do the opposite, because most of history (and the people in it) is not so easily judged.

Its probably not fair to suggest someone is doing something immoral by not judging a nuanced historical figure the way that you judge them.

Edited March 8, 2024 by bluebell

[webbles]

One thing that is interesting about Emma and Brigham is that Emma was not endowed or sealed in the Nauvoo temple.  As far as I can tell, all endowments and sealings that had been done before the Nauvoo Temple was built were redone in the Nauvoo Temple except for Emma's (page 281 at https://archive.org/details/nauvoo-sealings-adoptions-and-anointings/page/280/mode/2up?view=theater shows no endowment or sealing in the temple).  And I bet a strong reason was because of Emma and Brigham's dislike of each other.  At that time, if a sealing was done between a living person and a deceased person, the living person would be sealed for eternity to the deceased person and then for time to the living person.  So Emma would have had to pick someone to be her second spouse.  There are a few instances of woman being sealed for time to their sons instead of to another husband.  I don't think that option was available to Emma because her children were fairly young.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Good for you.  Do you  extend the same courtesy to other disreputable characters from that human history is littered with?

Do you still torture puppies for fun and profit?  (This is the part where we trade loaded questions, right?)  

I've long understood that a big part of the "Mormonism Sucks!" narrative is that the Latter-day Saints are too self-righteous and judgy.  But here you seem to be put off because I am not joining you in publicly condemning long-dead historical figures.  Oh, well.

I made this comment last year:

Quote

Avoidance/Mitigation of Presentism: "Presentism," that is, "uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts," is a poor basis for either generalized historiography or passing condemnatory moral judgments on people long dead.  It "transforms the study of history from an intellectually honest inquiry into a mass of politically and emotionally charged means of furthering political and social agendas that have nothing to do with a genuine intellectual interest in learning the cultural roots of our current cultural ideals and realities."  It is, "at its worst, encourages a kind of moral complacency and self-congratulation" because "{i}nterpreting the past in terms of present concerns usually leads us to find ourselves morally superior."  Consequently, "{o}ur forbears constantly fail to measure up to our present-day standards."  Presentism therefore ought to be avoided, or at lease acknowledged and addressed in discussions such as these, as it enables us to contextualize and understand the past, and therefore take lessons in both emulating our predecessors' virtues and strengths and avoiding or overcoming their weaknesses and failures.  That is, of course, "not to say that any of these findings are irrelevant or that we should endorse an entirely relativist point of view."  Rather, "we must question the stance of temporal superiority that is implicit {in presentism}."  Historical figures ought to be viewed in ways that involve more than condemning them for their failures and mistakes and errors.  

Avoidance of Expectations/Requirements of Infallibility: In the particular context of the Restored Gospel, there are ample admissions, both ancient and modern, that the oracles of God are imperfect and make mistakes, including substantial ones.  Notions of infallibility, whether explicit or implicit, must be set aside.

Neither Condemn Nor Ignore, but Learn: In assessing the failings and errors of past and present leaders in the Church, although we need to avoid notions of infallibility, we still need to come to terms with those failings/errors.  I think the best way to do that is to apply Mormon 9:31: "Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father, because of his imperfection, neither them who have written before him; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been."  We ought to neither justify nor condemn nor ignore historical figures for their mistakes and shortcomings, but rather learn from them.  "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."  (3 Nephi 14:2.)  

Failures are Often Not Definitive: We are living in an era in which virtual online retreads of the Cadaver Synod.  We deploy presentism to rise up and publicly proclaim our own supposed virtues and superiority by condemning long-dead historical figures.  We reduce the entirety of a historical person's life down to only his errors, mistakes and worst qualities.  So Moses becomes a murderer.  Noah becomes a drunkard.  Thomas Jefferson and George Washington become slaveowners.  Martin Luther King, Jr. becomes an adulterer and plagiarist.  Gandhi was a sexist and racist.  And that's all they were.  This is a serious mistake in reasoning, historiography, and discipleship.

FWIW.

But to directly answer your question: In the main, when the flaws and errors of notable historical figures are under discussion, I tend to deploy, sooner or later, Mormon 9:31.

In your view, is Martin Luther King, Jr. a "disreputable character"?

Was Winston Churchill?

Was Harvey Milk?

You are reducing the entirety of a Brigham Young's life down to only his errors, mistakes and worst qualities, and nothing else counts or matters.  It is the easiest thing in the world for us in 2024 sit comfortably in an insulated and heated home and peck away on a laptop to retroactively judge and condemn people we've never met, whose lives hewed much closer to misfortune, privation and death than ours, who were in circumstances substantially more difficult than ours, who lacked much of the information and contextualization we now enjoy (and all of our hindsight), who faced choices far more difficult than ours, and so on.

I can and do acknowledge Brigham Young's flaws and mistakes, but in the main, I think Mormon 9:31 is the better way to go.  The man is dead.  He cannot be tried for his mistakes and wrongdoings, not by us, anyway.  

We ought to neither condemn nor ignore our forebears, and should instead learn from them.  We should study those who came before, and emulate their virtues and strengths and successes, and also learn from and avoid their vices and weaknesses and failures.  And all the while "give thanks unto God that he had made manifest unto {us} {our ancestors'} imperfections, that {we} may learn to be more wise than {they were}."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 8, 2024 by smac97

[Smiley McGee]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

You have lost me. Maybe you have skipped a few steps in your reasoning assuming we would follow it?

Talking about a specific event in the past does not automatically generalize to current events.  And accepting one is not able to change something in the past does not assume one can’t change something in the here and now.

Especially given Brigham and Emma are in the Spirit world or resurrected and we have no clue how they are interacting now, it seems odd to insist we make judgments about the current state of their relationship rather than leaving the afterlife to the oversight of God.  That appears to me to be what Smac has focused on when he said they will sort it out.

Now if someone started mistreating Smac’s family in the afterlife, that comment might be relevant, but not seeing the connection to being content with God handling post mortality with what we should be focusing on in mortality.

What in the world...

We discuss the relative morality of historical matters all of time here...polygamy, race issues, etc. That we can't go back and change anything is irrelevant. I'm not insisting that a judgement be made; a judgement was made and a justification was provided. When a person says they are content with a matter and uses scripture to suggest that we not judge the imperfections of the others in this regard, they are laying out a structured argument and evidencing a conceptual framework. That is what is being discussed; it's what is discussed everyday here. I don't care whether Emma and Brigham are now buddies hanging out in the spirit world. 

Edited March 8, 2024 by Smiley McGee

[smac97]

On 3/6/2024 at 1:37 PM, Smiley McGee said:

Brigham Young is rubbing this in Emma's face. 

Brigham Young died 146 years ago.  In the context of this thread, speaking of him as doing anything in the present tense is a bit odd.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

49 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Quote

Now if someone started mistreating Smac’s family in the afterlife, that comment might be relevant, but not seeing the connection to being content with God handling post mortality with what we should be focusing on in mortality.

What in the world...

We discuss the relative morality of historical matters all of time here...polygamy, race issues, etc. That we can't go back and change anything is irrelevant.

It sure seemed relevant when you said this:

Quote

Quote

Mormon 9:31 kicks in a lot for me these days, particularly when the flaws and errors of notable historical figures are under discussion.

I hope to God you wouldn’t be this indifferent if someone treated your wife or daughters the way Brigham treated Emma. 

You seemed to be conflating my position on a dispute between two long-dead people with hypothetical current mistreatment of my wife or daughters.

I can't do anything about the former.  I can do something about the latter.  So why are you treating my responses to these things as functionally interchangeable?

49 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

I'm not insisting that a judgement be made;

Again: "I hope to God you wouldn’t be this indifferent if someone treated your wife or daughters the way Brigham treated Emma."

You seem irritated that I am not passing judgment on the Brigham/Emma hostilities.  You expressed this irritation by comparing that conflict with a hypothetical one in which someone is - in the hear and now - mistreating my wife and daughters.

You were impliedly casting doubt on my decency and competency as a husband and father, suggesting that I would not step in to defend them against mistreatment.  That I would stand idly by and let such mistreatment go unanswered and unaddressed.  That I would take the same approach to currently-existing-in-2024 mistreatment of people I know and love and owe duties to as I do to the Brigham/Emma hostilities.

As I don't know you, and as you are hiding behind a pseudonym, your disparaging remark doesn't mean much.  But I'll respond anyway: I would do something if someone was presently mistreating my wife or my daughters.  I would intervene.  I would defend them.  I would first seek to stop the mistreatment, then to de-escalate tensions, then reason out the reason for the dispute, and so on.  I would do these things because I love my wife and daughters.  I owe duties to them.  I have stewardship and responsibilities regarding their well-being.

In contrast, there's nothing much I can or ought to do relative to Brigham and Emma.  I can't intervene in their dispute because they are dead.  I feel no particular need to condemn the mistakes they made because they are dead.  Instead, I leave the entirety of the relationship between Brigham and Emma to . . . Brigham and Emma.  And God.  Meanwhile, I remember Mormon 9:31 and seek to apply it.  I neither condemn Brigham and Emma, nor do I ignore them.  Rather, I seek to learn from them, and give thanks to God that he has made their flaws known to us, so that we can be wise and avoid similar mistakes.

Somehow, you find this posture to be a bad thing.  Oh, well.

49 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

a judgement was made and a justification was provided.

Um, no.  A judgment was not made.  It was that non-judgment, my declination to judge and condemn people long dead, and to instead leave such matters to them and God, that triggered your rather ugly disparagement about me not stepping up to defend my wife and daughters.

Mormon 9:31 still seems like a pretty good way to go when discussing historical figures and their errors and flaws.

49 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

When a person says they are content with a matter and uses scripture to suggest that we not judge the imperfections of the others in this regard, they are laying out a structured argument and evidencing a conceptual framework.

Once more, with feeling: "Mormon 9:31 kicks in a lot for me these days, particularly when the flaws and errors of notable historical figures are under discussion."

49 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

That is what is being discussed; it's what is discussed everyday here. I don't care whether Emma and Brigham are now buddies hanging out in the spirit world. 

Strange, then, that you took exception to me not condemning them and their estrangement from each other.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 8, 2024 by smac97

[Smiley McGee]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Brigham Young died 146 years ago.  In the context of this thread, speaking of him as doing anything in the present tense is a bit odd.

Thanks,

-Smac

No; what's odd is the game you and @Calm are playing to see who can feign the poorest understanding idioms and basic abstraction. You're both winning. 

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

Quote

Brigham Young died 146 years ago.  In the context of this thread, speaking of him as doing anything in the present tense is a bit odd.

No; what's odd is the game you and @Calm are playing to see who can feign the poorest understanding idioms and basic abstraction. You're both winning. 

Well, not really.  You initiated this little dust-up by comparing my reaction to a dispute between two long-dead people (Brigham and Emma) with my reaction to a hypothetical current dispute involving my wife and daughters, and implying that I should have a similar or identical approach to both.  This seems to be more than "idioms and basic abstraction."

Again, there's essentially nothing I can do about the former, but plenty I can do about the latter.  So I take different approaches to these two matters.  And you seem to have a problem with that, which I find odd.  You want me to treat a dispute from nearly 200 years ago between two people I've never met in the same way I would treat a dispute in 2024 involving my wife and daughters?  Why?  

Thanks,

-Smac 

Edited March 8, 2024 by smac97

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

And some who do the opposite, because most of history (and the people in it) is not so easily judged.

Its probably not fair to suggest someone is doing something immoral by not judging a nuanced historical figure the way that you judge them.

So we cannot determine that Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Gehngis Kahn, etc were despicable persons? We have enough documented history about Brigham to decide how we feel about him as a person.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Do you still torture puppies for fun and profit?  (This is the part where we trade loaded questions, right?)  

You bet. All the time. 😏

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I've long understood that a big part of the "Mormonism Sucks!" narrative is that the Latter-day Saints are too self-righteous and judgy. 

It has nothing to do with Mormonism.  There are historical Mormon figures that I still admire.  But I know pulling the persecution card is a nice easy path to trod down for you.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

But here you seem to be put off because I am not joining you in publicly condemning long-dead historical figures.  Oh, well.

Ha!  I am not put off at all. Better said you are amusing me. I could have predicted your response to a tee.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

You are reducing the entirety of a Brigham Young's life down to only his errors, mistakes and worst qualities, and nothing else counts or matters.  It is the easiest thing in the world for us in 2024 sit comfortably in an insulated and heated home and peck away on a laptop to retroactively judge and condemn people we've never met, whose lives hewed much closer to misfortune, privation and death than ours, who were in circumstances substantially more difficult than ours, who lacked much of the information and contextualization we now enjoy (and all of our hindsight), who faced choices far more difficult than ours, and so on.

Not really. I admire what much of what he accomplished. It impacted my life. I just think he was despicable.  Someone can be despicable and accomplish things. Even good things. Brigham accomplished some good things. 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can and do acknowledge Brigham Young's flaws and mistakes, but in the main, I think Mormon 9:31 is the better way to go.  The man is dead.  He cannot be tried for his mistakes and wrongdoings, not by us, anyway.  

So what?  I am expressing my opinion.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

We ought to neither condemn nor ignore our forebears, and should instead learn from them.  We should study those who came before, and emulate their virtues and strengths and successes, and also learn from and avoid their vices and weaknesses and failures.  And all the while "give thanks unto God that he had made manifest unto {us} {our ancestors'} imperfections, that {we} may learn to be more wise than {they were}."

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you for the lecture.

Edited March 8, 2024 by Teancum

[blackstrap]

Now the Godwin's law (sp?) has been invoked , it should be noted that at least Hitler made the trains run on time ... and he loved his dog ! 😒

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So we cannot determine that Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Gehngis Kahn, etc were despicable persons? We have enough documented history about Brigham to decide how we feel about him as a person.

That's not what I said.

There are some historical figures that are not nuanced at all, and their actions are universally condemned.  Most historical figures are nuanced though.  It's not reasonable to attempt to compare a nuanced historical figure (like Napoleon or Churchill or JFK, for example, or BY or JS) to one like Hitler or Stalin.

Yes, some historical figures are easily condemned but the existence of easily condemned historical figures does not mean that we can easily condemn every historical figure that we don't like or that has done things we don't agree with.  

I disagree that we have enough documented history about BS to put him in the same category as Hitler.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

You are reducing the entirety of a Brigham Young's life down to only his errors, mistakes and worst qualities, and nothing else counts or matters.  It is the easiest thing in the world for us in 2024 sit comfortably in an insulated and heated home and peck away on a laptop to retroactively judge and condemn people we've never met, whose lives hewed much closer to misfortune, privation and death than ours, who were in circumstances substantially more difficult than ours, who lacked much of the information and contextualization we now enjoy (and all of our hindsight), who faced choices far more difficult than ours, and so on.

Not really.

You: "I take Emma's side. Based on my studies of BY he was a despicable man."

You: "Doesn't change the fact that BY seems like a despicable human."

You: "So we cannot determine that Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Gehngis Kahn, etc were despicable persons? We have enough documented history about Brigham to decide how we feel about him as a person."

You: "I just think he was despicable."

Despicable: "deserving hatred and contempt."

8 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So what?  I am expressing my opinion.

Thank you for the lecture. I will likely ignore it.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[blackstrap]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

about BS

oops

[Teancum]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

That's not what I said.

Ok.

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There are some historical figures that are not nuanced at all, and their actions are universally condemned.  Most historical figures are nuanced though.  It's not reasonable to attempt to compare a nuanced historical figure (like Napoleon or Churchill or JFK, for example, or BY or JS) to one like Hitler or Stalin.

And we can read about "nuanced" persons and reach whatever conclusions we reach. You do it. I do it. We all do it. You and @smac97don't like that we are expressing a negative opinion about someone you apparently feel different about.

 

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yes, some historical figures are easily condemned but the existence of easily condemned historical figures does not mean that we can easily condemn every historical figure that we don't like or that has done things we don't agree with.  

 

Good lord. Saying someone is despicable is not condemning him.  I acknowledge BY accomplished a lot of wonderful things. I just have an opinion that he was despicable.

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

I disagree that we have enough documented history about BS to put him in the same category as Hitler.

Feel free to disagree.  I did not put him in that category. I just listed out examples of people that we rank as despicable easily.  There are others I think were despicable persons. Nixon for example.  But I think but for Watergate he was a good president. Kennedy.  He was a despicable philander.  But I think he was a good president and could have been great had he not been killed.  But he was certainly a horrible husband.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Good lord. Saying someone is despicable is not condemning him.  I acknowledge BY accomplished a lot of wonderful things. I just have an opinion that he was despicable.

Despicable means worthy of hatred and contempt.  To condemn means that something or someone is worthy of public disapproval.

So, you are saying that BY is worthy of hatred and contempt but you do not publicly disapprove of him?

[Teancum]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You: "I take Emma's side. Based on my studies of BY he was a despicable man."

You: "Doesn't change the fact that BY seems like a despicable human."

You: "So we cannot determine that Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Gehngis Kahn, etc were despicable persons? We have enough documented history about Brigham to decide how we feel about him as a person."

You: "I just think he was despicable."

Despicable: "deserving hatred and contempt."

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is hilarious. One sentence and you have written paragraphs and seem apoplectic. You cannot ever give an inch can you. Well it make you feel better if I say he was just a nasty fellow? 🙄