Sammy Jankins wrote:The church still dodges the whole truth where they think they can. Like in the polygamy essay when even a complete novice like me was able to catch them trying to mislead by saying Emma likely didn't know about all of Jospeh's polygamous marriages, when we have concrete examples she didn't.
They like to frame everything as an epic war that never ends, Them vs Satan, therefore justifying the same ethic associated with Churchill's statement to Stalin at Tehran: “In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies.”
The Modus operandi of Unorthodox Internet Mormons seems to be to accuse everyone else of having simplistic and reductionist views, while patting themselves on the back telling themselves they have naunced contextualized views. They dial up the complexity as much as they can to obsfucate whether or not the church is true with all the noise. But even if I accept Whitney's argument he still has turned the church into something that appears entirely man made. And made the church indistinguishable from all the other sharks in the dirty water.
Maksutov wrote:I fear that Mormons will do that about the time that Southerners give up their attachment to the Confederacy, and for the same reasons. A tribal myth with poisonous shoots.
You may be right. Someone, at any rate, is bound to hold onto it.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Water Dog wrote:This reminds me of that famous quote from Elder Packer.
Elder Packer wrote:I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting.
Whitney seems to be making the same argument, that the end justifies the means. But, does it? That's really the heart of the matter. This is not a case of senselessly making the office secretary feel bad about herself. At stake is a person's agency, their freedom to choose. This is actually a very "communist" argument. It's an argument for prohibition, the greater good. We don't trust you peons to make a good decision, so we're going to choose for you. But since we can't physically prevent you from making the wrong choice, we'll just lie to you instead, tricking you into making the decision we want you to make. So you'll make the right choice for all the wrong reasons, but that's ok, because it's the right choice. What arrogance. Is this not the antithesis of the gospel, to be subject to both good and evil and learn to discern the difference for oneself? The objective is not to be a tourist ridding a boat being driven by Elder Ballard or anybody else, but to learn to become a coxswain ourselves. Spiritual empowerment vs spiritual enslavement.
This is why I'm a libertarian. Both left and right tend toward authoritarianism. This is authoritarianism in its most concentrated form: religion. The state does not follow you beyond the grave.
Water Dog wrote:This reminds me of that famous quote from Elder Packer.
Elder Packer wrote:I have a hard time with historians because they idolize the truth. The truth is not uplifting; it destroys. I could tell most of the secretaries in the church office building that they are ugly and fat. That would be the truth, but it would hurt and destroy them. Historians should tell only that part of the truth that is inspiring and uplifting.
Whitney seems to be making the same argument, that the end justifies the means. But, does it? That's really the heart of the matter. This is not a case of senselessly making the office secretary feel bad about herself. At stake is a person's agency, their freedom to choose. This is actually a very "communist" argument. It's an argument for prohibition, the greater good. We don't trust you peons to make a good decision, so we're going to choose for you. But since we can't physically prevent you from making the wrong choice, we'll just lie to you instead, tricking you into making the decision we want you to make. So you'll make the right choice for all the wrong reasons, but that's ok, because it's the right choice. What arrogance. Is this not the antithesis of the gospel, to be subject to both good and evil and learn to discern the difference for oneself? The objective is not to be a tourist ridding a boat being driven by Elder Ballard or anybody else, but to learn to become a coxswain ourselves. Spiritual empowerment vs spiritual enslavement.
Even more so, it was Satan's purported argument.
I've told this story before, but after inviting questions from the audience in which I was sitting, BKP told me in response to a question I posed about the 2nd anointing, that "You don't need to know that."
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
Packerian logic. Deliberate omission is just as bad as whitewashing, outright lying, and post hoc editing.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Water Dog wrote: This is actually a very "communist" argument. It's an argument for prohibition, the greater good. We don't trust you peons to make a good decision, so we're going to choose for you.
Well stated, Water Dog. I like it when I agree with folks with whom I usually find myself at odds.
I lie awake, staring out at the bleakness of Megadon. City and sky become one, merging into a single plane, a vast sea of unbroken grey. The Twin Moons, just two pale orbs as they trace their way across the steely sky. I used to think I had a pretty good life here, just plugging into my machine for the day, then watching Templevision or reading a Temple Paper in the evening.
'My friend Jon always said it was nicer here than under the atmospheric domes of the Outer Planets. We have had peace since 2062, when the surviving planets were banded together under the Red Star of the Solar Federation. The less fortunate gave us a few new moons. I believed what I was told. I thought it was a good life, I thought I was happy. Then I found something that changed it all...
Forget about your silly whim. It doesn't fit the plan...
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain "The lds church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
Sammy Jankins wrote:The Modus operandi of Unorthodox Internet Mormons seems to be to accuse everyone else of having simplistic and reductionist views, while patting themselves on the back telling themselves they have naunced contextualized views. They dial up the complexity as much as they can to obsfucate whether or not the church is true with all the noise. But even if I accept Whitney's argument he still has turned the church into something that appears entirely man made. And made the church indistinguishable from all the other sharks in the dirty water.
That touches on the question that the Mopes ardently hide. If a Mope actually believes despite what he/she knows, then why not give a detailed explanation of how he/she actually deals with each piece of the damning evidence. Let us see if you, the Mope, can explain it in a way that holds water. Since the Mope resists, I'm led towards the conclusion that perhaps the Mope doesn't believe, that the LDS Church serves other purposes/agenda of the Mope, and that it would only continue to serve those ends if others continue under the misapprehension that the Mope in fact believes. The complex, nuanced contextualizing is all just to keep the Mope's real reasons and agenda under wraps.
I think Brian Whitney may want to consider rewording this sentence from his post:
Spurred on by the Joseph Smith Papers Project, the publications division of the Church History Department became re-invigorated with initiatives beginning with the 2008 publication of Massacre at Mountain Meadows by Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley, and Glen M. Leonard. To date, this is the most candid look at the history of a troubling event approved by the church;
I'm not sure if this is Freudian.
You prove yourself of the devil and anti-mormon every word you utter, because only the devil perverts facts to make their case.--ldsfaqs (6-24-13)
consiglieri wrote:I think Brian Whitney may want to consider rewording this sentence from his post:
Spurred on by the Joseph Smith Papers Project, the publications division of the Church History Department became re-invigorated with initiatives beginning with the 2008 publication of Massacre at Mountain Meadows by Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley, and Glen M. Leonard. To date, this is the most candid look at the history of a troubling event approved by the church;
