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

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

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.

Repeatedly calling Brigham Young a "despicable" person, comparing him to "Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Gehngis Kahn, etc." is, in your view, "nuanced."

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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?

Some of what he did and said are worthy of contempt.  

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Teancum said:

 

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.

Not at all.  Given your beliefs, I would find it weird if you did like him.  What I don't like is you and smiley suggesting that there is something morally wrong with people if they don't react to BY the way that you guys do.

There are people in this discussion who are implying negative things about other posters because they won't agree with their views of BY, but it's not me (and unless I missed something, it's not smac either).

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Some of what he did and said are worthy of contempt.  

But you don't publically disapprove of him?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

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. 

I am not feigning anything, I truly don’t understand why you have gone this way…and given that some posters have given my posts an upvote I am guessing they don’t understand the thought process behind your comments that well either.

What would be the payoff for me pretending I don’t understand you when I really do?  I really don’t understand why you think I would go to the effort of feigning lack of understanding.  If your point is as obvious as you think it is, all that would do is make me look stupid…and I definitely don’t want to look like that.   

Edited March 8, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Saying someone is despicable is not condemning him.

Saying someone deserves to be despised sure seems like condemning him to me.  That surprises me you think that way given the typical use of the label of despicable and despised.  I have always assumed it was a condemnation when I have heard people use it to describe someone’s character, as in he is or was despicable as it’s a defining characteristic of the person like he is a bigot or he is a rapist.

Now if you had said he has done some despicable things, it seems you are more open to that not being the sum conclusion about his character.

We were even counseled quite forcibly not to describe my daughter as a diabetic by the psychologist who first worked with us when she was diagnosed, as saying in she has diabetes rather than saying she is diabetic. It is similar to saying you are bad versus saying you are doing a bad thing to a kid.  They most likely hear “you are bad” as something they can’t change, it is who they are versus they can change behaviors and stop doing bad things.

Quote

deserving to be despised

adjective. deserving to be despised, or regarded with distaste, disgust, or disdain; contemptible: He was a mean, despicable man, who treated his wife and children badly.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/despicable#

Edited March 8, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

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.

A post 76 words long, comprised almost entirely of quotes of your statements, amounts to "paragraphs."

And my writing it renders me "apoplectic" (that is, "extremely angry; furious").

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Not at all.  Given your beliefs, I would find it weird if you did like him.  What I don't like is you and smiley suggesting that there is something morally wrong with people if they don't react to BY the way that you guys do.

Did I do that?

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

 

 

[MustardSeed]

Apparently Mark Twain had a club for young teenage girls that he was the head of. There is some recent questioning regarding his intentions and his involvement with these girls.

If these things are proven true, it would be nice for those who have Hero worshiped Mark Twain to acknowledge these truths and recognize that he is not the larger than life hero we were taught to revere when we were taught history and lit in school. 
 

But people are allowed to like and worship whoever they want to. I think it’s good to recognize that all human beings are terrifically flawed. Some refuse to go there, but for those of us who are OK with that truth, it can actually be enough for us to see it, and others not to.  IMO. 
 

these thoughts come for me after sitting through a funeral, where the dead was put on a ridiculous pedestal. I know my experience with this narcissistic, dangerous, sexist, abusive man. I don’t need anybody else to validate my experience. But it would’ve been nice.

Edited March 8, 2024 by MustardSeed

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

A post 76 words long, comprised almost entirely of quotes of your statements, amounts to "paragraphs."

And my writing it renders me "apoplectic" (that is, "extremely angry; furious").

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

You really went back and counted your words?  🤣🤣

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Saying someone deserves to be despised sure seems like condemning him to me.  That surprises me you think that way given the typical use of the label of despicable and despised.  I have always assumed it was a condemnation when I have heard people use it to describe someone’s character, as in he is or was despicable as it’s a defining characteristic of the person like he is a bigot or he is a rapist.

Now if you had said he has done some despicable things, it seems you are more open to that not being the sum conclusion about his character

Ok I will go with that.  He did and said some things that seem fairly despicable to me. Is that better?

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

But you don't publically disapprove of him?

I would say that based on my study of his life, as well as things he said, there are some things I disapprove of. And publicly.  Additionally there are things that he may have been suspected of, that if true, I would add to my list. But those are speculative so I won't throw those things in the bucket.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Repeatedly calling Brigham Young a "despicable" person, comparing him to "Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Gehngis Kahn, etc." is, in your view, "nuanced."

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

It was an extreme example dude. Never said Big Brig was as bad as those characters. I was just listing persons from history that we certainly do judge and wondered if you would apply Moroni 9:31 to those persons.

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Ok I will go with that.  He did and said some things that seem fairly despicable to me. Is that better?

Much better.  This is easily understood as leaving openings for reasons to approve or respect some things he accomplished so those who do see him as admirable in general are not being morally blind, but choosing to place a different weight of value on the good stuff, etc….something reasonable people might do. 

Edited March 8, 2024 by Calm

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Not at all.  Given your beliefs, I would find it weird if you did like him.  What I don't like is you and smiley suggesting that there is something morally wrong with people if they don't react to BY the way that you guys do.

 

You know there is actually much I still like about Joseph Smith even though I think he was a fraudster.  I tilt towards a pious fraud and no more a fraudster than the founder of any other religion. Same with other LDS historical characters. I like BH Roberts quite well.  And Orson Pratt as well.  I find Brigham rather mean spirited and a tyrant with the power he held in Utah and the Great Basin of North America.

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Repeatedly calling Brigham Young a "despicable" person, comparing him to "Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Gehngis Kahn, etc." is, in your view, "nuanced."

It was an extreme example dude.

Perhaps even an "apoplectic" one?

And what "it" are you referencing?  Brigham Young is an "extreme example" of a "despicable" person (that is, a person "deserving hatred and contempt")?  Comparable to "Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Gehngis Kahn, etc."?

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Never said Big Brig was as bad as those characters.

You said, several times over, that Brigham Young was "despicable."

You then unilaterally compared him to other "despicable persons" ("Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Gehngis Kahn, etc.").

You then said "{w}e have enough documented history about Brigham to decide how we feel about him as a person."  That is, a despicable person, one "deserving hatred and contempt," one comparable to the Historical Hit Parade you listed above.

Kinda hard to rehabilitate what you have said.  Perhaps a retraction would be better.

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I was just listing persons from history

Right.  The worst figures in history who have been condemned as "despicable," hence their utility in you justifying your attachment of that label to Brigham Young.

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

that we certainly do judge and wondered if you would apply Moroni 9:31 to those persons.

I originally 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."  

I thought this would be axiomatic, but I guess I should clarify that I was describing a general principle.  A general principle may or may not be applicable at the extremes.

By way of example, Brigham Young heard some things about Emma (such as that she had attempted to poison Joseph), gave them undue credence, added those to his other disagreements with her (re: her denial that Joseph taught plural marriage, her claiming that Brigham created it and foisted it on the Church, disputes re: church assets held in Joseph's name, etc.), and made acrimonious public statements about her. 

Quite unfortunate stuff, this.  But is it morally comparable to the "extremes" in the hugely evil and destructive behaviors of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Khan, etc.?  Well, no, I don't think so.  Consider these remarks by Davis Bitton ("I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church") :

Quote

The critics would have you believe that they are disinterested pursuers of the truth. There they were, minding their own business, going about their conscientious study of Church history and — shock and dismay! — they came across this, whatever this is, that blew them away. As hurtful as it is for them, they can no longer believe in the Church and, out of love for you, they now want to help you see the light of day.²

Let’s get one thing clear: There is nothing in Church history that leads inevitably to the conclusion that the Church is false. There is nothing that requires the conclusion that Joseph Smith was a fraud. How can I say this with such confidence? For the simple reason that the historians who know most about our Church history have been and are faithful, committed members of the Church. Or, to restate the situation more precisely, there are faithful Latter-day Saint historians who know as much about this subject as any anti-Mormon or as anyone who writes on the subject from an outside perspective. With few exceptions, they know much, much more. They have not been blown away. They have not gnashed their teeth and abandoned their faith. To repeat, they have found nothing that forces the extreme conclusion our enemies like to promote.

We need to reject the simple-minded, inaccurate picture that divides people into two classes. On one hand, according to our enemies, are the sincere seekers of truth, full of goodness and charity. On the other hand, in their view, stand the ignorant members. Even faithful Latter-day Saint scholars must be ignorant. Otherwise they are dishonest, playing their part in the conspiracy to deceive their people. This is the anti-Mormon view of the situation.

Can we see how ridiculous this picture is? It is a travesty on both sides. Many Latter-day Saints may not know their history in depth. But some of them know a good deal. As for Latter-day Saint scholars, as a group they compare favorably with any similar group of historians. It will not do to charge them with being dishonest. I happen to know most of them and have no hesitation in rejecting a smear of their character.

For myself, I find both the label ("despicable") and the comparison to the foregoing figures to be quite overwrought, and facile, and unreasonable.  I think you cheapen the horrors inflicted on humanity by Hitler et al. when you invoke them to spitefully disparage a long-dead leader of a religion you dislike.  Indeed, such trivialization was the original impetus for Godwin's Law:

Quote

Promulgated by the American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990,^[1] Godwin's law originally referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions.^[3] He stated that he introduced Godwin's law in 1990 as an experiment in memetics,^[1] specifically to address the ubiquity of such comparisons which he believes regrettably trivialize the Holocaust.^[4][5] Later, it was applied to any threaded online discussion, such as Internet forums, chat rooms, and social-media comment threads, as well as to speeches, articles, and other rhetoric^[6][7] where reductio ad Hitlerum occurs.
...
 

Quote

Although deliberately framed as if it were a law of nature or of mathematics, its purpose has always been rhetorical and pedagogical: I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler to think a bit harder about the Holocaust.

 

It is, of course, your prerogative to label Brigham Young - again and again - a "despicable person," a person "deserving hatred and contempt."  You are likewise at liberty to publicly compare him to monumental monsters of history - Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Khan - to whom you attach the same label.  Or you could just retract your overwrought statements.  Or we could just move on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

You really went back and counted your words?  🤣🤣

You really characterized those words as "paragraphs"?

I pasted them into Word and used the "WordCount" feature.  It took ten seconds.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

You really characterized those words as "paragraphs"?

I pasted them into Word and used the "WordCount" feature.  It took ten seconds.

Thanks,

-Smac

It is the fact that you felt a need to do this. 🤣

[Teancum]

13 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps even an "apoplectic" one?

And what "it" are you referencing?  Brigham Young is an "extreme example" of a "despicable" person (that is, a person "deserving hatred and contempt")?  Comparable to "Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Gehngis Kahn, etc."?

You said, several times over, that Brigham Young was "despicable."

You then unilaterally compared him to other "despicable persons" ("Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Gehngis Kahn, etc.").

You then said "{w}e have enough documented history about Brigham to decide how we feel about him as a person."  That is, a despicable person, one "deserving hatred and contempt," one comparable to the Historical Hit Parade you listed above.

Kinda hard to rehabilitate what you have said.  Perhaps a retraction would be better.

Right.  The worst figures in history who have been condemned as "despicable," hence their utility in you justifying your attachment of that label to Brigham Young.

I originally 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."  

I thought this would be axiomatic, but I guess I should clarify that I was describing a general principle.  A general principle may or may not be applicable at the extremes.

By way of example, Brigham Young heard some things about Emma (such as that she had attempted to poison Joseph), gave them undue credence, added those to his other disagreements with her (re: her denial that Joseph taught plural marriage, her claiming that Brigham created it and foisted it on the Church, disputes re: church assets held in Joseph's name, etc.), and made acrimonious public statements about her. 

Quite unfortunate stuff, this.  But is it morally comparable to the "extremes" in the hugely evil and destructive behaviors of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Khan, etc.?  Well, no, I don't think so.  Consider these remarks by Davis Bitton ("I Don’t Have a Testimony of the History of the Church") :

For myself, I find both the label ("despicable") and the comparison to the foregoing figures to be quite overwrought, and facile, and unreasonable.  I think you cheapen the horrors inflicted on humanity by Hitler et al. when you invoke them to spitefully disparage a long-dead leader of a religion you dislike.  Indeed, such trivialization was the original impetus for Godwin's Law:

It is, of course, your prerogative to label Brigham Young - again and again - a "despicable person," a person "deserving hatred and contempt."  You are likewise at liberty to publicly compare him to monumental monsters of history - Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Khan - to whom you attach the same label.  Or you could just retract your overwrought statements.  Or we could just move on.

Thanks,

-Smac

More words and paragraphs.  I already modified my comment to I find SOME of BYs words and deeds despicable.  See my comments to @Calm You really have made my day.  Quite humorous.  And yea you seem apoplectic.  But you seem so over most any criticism of Mormonism things.  Even as a believer I was never a Brigham fan.  Gotta run.  It is tax season and I am busy. And I am it is actually 60 degrees here in Palmyra NY and I am going to take a break and squeeze a bike ride in. I may even do my Joseph Smith Farm Sacred Grove loop. 

Edited March 8, 2024 by Teancum

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, Teancum said:

More words and paragraphs.  

More personal taunts and digs.  And little by way of substantive discussion of Brigham Young or other topics in this thread.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

More personal taunts and digs.  And little by way of substantive discussion of Brigham Young or other topics in this thread.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

Ah Smac old buddy.  I thought about you and others on my bike ride yesterday and thought how much you would enjoy visiting the LDS historical sites along with the Palmyra Temple, all of which I pedaled past yesterday.  I even longed, in my mind, to be able to meet and talk to Joseph Smith and ask him was it all real or what?  I think about that often actually.  I am sorry that my one comment about BY had put you in such a tail spin that it took some precious moments from your day yesterday. 

[gopher]

Last time I visited the Kirtland temple, the CoC tour guide only stated that Joseph Smith had a "spiritual experience" in the temple, but didn't explain any further.  There was no mention of the visits by Moses, Elias, and Elijah.  I'm guessing that will change with the LDS church tours?

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

Much better.  This is easily understood as leaving openings for reasons to approve or respect some things he accomplished so those who do see him as admirable in general are not being morally blind, but choosing to place a different weight of value on the good stuff, etc….something reasonable people might do. 

I do appreciate you. You help keep me in check. I would love to meet you in person someday.

[Tacenda]

53 minutes ago, gopher said:

Last time I visited the Kirtland temple, the CoC tour guide only stated that Joseph Smith had a "spiritual experience" in the temple, but didn't explain any further.  There was no mention of the visits by Moses, Elias, and Elijah.  I'm guessing that will change with the LDS church tours?

I listened to the "InsideOut" podcast with Jim Bennett and Ian Wilks, and they discussed how things might change now that the LDS church owns it. It will most likely be a missionary tool like all the other historical buildings. Unlike the CoC tours. And he said in the temple there was a see through thin white curtain, between where the Lord visited Joseph and Oliver Cowdery and those on the other side. And he thought people on the other said would have seen it too. So Jim believes it was more a vision, not an actual visit by the Lord. https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/the-kirtland-temple/id1682941294?i=1000648419919

Edited March 9, 2024 by Tacenda

[MiserereNobis]

21 hours ago, Teancum said:

Someone can be despicable and accomplish things. Even good things.

This is how I feel about some of the bad popes. They did some despicable things, but then I read a papal bull (I love the term) or encyclical they wrote and I think, "wow, that was awesome."

The bad behavior of Catholic leaders doesn't affect my faith. I can roundly and soundly condemn it. I can apologize for it, for as a Catholic I am connected to it. I can do my part to help the Church and her leaders and me do better.

I look back to St. Peter, the first pope (from our belief). In the literal presence of Christ, he denied Him three times. Then there's St. Paul, who was at the martyrdom of St. Stephen. And yet under the leadership of these two, Christianity spread.

I agree that we can condemn the bad and praise the good. We are all bad and good and everything in between.