Clarification so as to be clear.

[MG 2.0]

Zone of the most disgusting things I have ever read from a Mormon came from mentalgymnast:
mentalgymnast wrote this, referring to a time when Joseph Smith was already married to Emma. I can't even fathom a man who would speak about a woman like this, much less the wife of one he considers a prophet. I really feel sorry for any women in his life, how can they read this and think he has any respect for women??

How MG could "safely make the conjecture" that Emma "would likely have refused" is beyond me. Then he follows that "likely" determination with a more definitive but contradictory "Without a doubt."

It looks to me like pure speculation, asserted with, apparently, complete confidence.

Like I said, I don’t know what all the hullabaloo was about. Especially when read in complete context. It’s just another mountain out of a molehill.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Has this not been explained to MG recently - like within the past 2-3 months? Or is my memory letting me down?

Ah! And arrow! Thanks for that. I didn't make the connection. Here is what I said:

The early sealings where associated with the introduction of plural marriage. After the Fanny Alger incident I would thing Emma was not too keen on Joseph taking other wives. Emma threw Fanny out not long after she and Oliver made the observation of Joseph and Fanny in the barn. One might safely make the conjecture that Joseph not would be obliged or feel it safe to propose to Emma and ask her that she be one of the first sealings. There was a bit of 'stuff' going on there. She would likely have refused. Without a doubt.

Later, she was amenable.

There you go! Complete context. I'm really not sure what the hullabaloo is in regard to this post?

Regards,
MG

Perhaps partly it's that you are making assumptions about Emma's state of mind, and Joseph's state of mind, firstly acknowledging that you are making assumptions: "One might safely make the conjecture", and "Joseph not would be obliged or feel it safe", and " She would likely have refused."; and then in effect denying that they are mere assumptions on your part: "Without a doubt.".

[MG 2.0]

Ah! And arrow! Thanks for that. I didn't make the connection. Here is what I said:



There you go! Complete context. I'm really not sure what the hullabaloo is in regard to this post?

Regards,
MG

Perhaps partly it's that you are making assumptions about Emma's state of mind, and Joseph's state of mind, firstly acknowledging that you are making assumptions: "One might safely make the conjecture", and "Joseph not would be obliged or feel it safe", and " She would likely have refused."; and then in effect denying that they are mere assumptions on your part: "Without a doubt.".

The poster that made the hullabaloo said:

mentalgymnast wrote this, referring to a time when Joseph Smith was already married to Emma. I can't even fathom a man who would speak about a woman like this, much less the wife of one he considers a prophet. I really feel sorry for any women in his life, how can they read this and think he has any respect for women??

I had/have no idea how this could be extrapolated from what I have now posted in its complete context. It’s literally a bunch of BS.

I will not respond or communicate directly with this poster, and a few others,because over and over again I’ve had to deal with BS and questionable tactics.

As it is, I’ve spent too much time on this ‘mountain out of a molehill’

Done.

Also, knowing that you and others may very well try to spin things in order to protect ‘one of your own’.

Expected.

Regards,
MG

[malkie]

Perhaps partly it's that you are making assumptions about Emma's state of mind, and Joseph's state of mind, firstly acknowledging that you are making assumptions: "One might safely make the conjecture", and "Joseph not would be obliged or feel it safe", and " She would likely have refused."; and then in effect denying that they are mere assumptions on your part: "Without a doubt.".

The poster that made the hullabaloo said:

mentalgymnast wrote this, referring to a time when Joseph Smith was already married to Emma. I can't even fathom a man who would speak about a woman like this, much less the wife of one he considers a prophet. I really feel sorry for any women in his life, how can they read this and think he has any respect for women??

I had/have no idea how this could be extrapolated from what I have now posted in its complete context. It’s literally a bunch of BS.

I will not respond or communicate directly with this poster, and a few others,because over and over again I’ve had to deal with BS and questionable tactics.

As it is, I’ve spent too much time on this ‘mountain out of a molehill’

Done.

Also, knowing that you and others may very well try to spin things in order to protect ‘one of your own’.

Expected.

Regards,
MG

I guess I should TTOC on this one.

[MG 2.0]

The poster that made the hullabaloo said:



I had/have no idea how this could be extrapolated from what I have now posted in its complete context. It’s literally a bunch of BS.

I will not respond or communicate directly with this poster, and a few others,because over and over again I’ve had to deal with BS and questionable tactics.

As it is, I’ve spent too much time on this ‘mountain out of a molehill’

Done.

Also, knowing that you and others may very well try to spin things in order to protect ‘one of your own’.

Expected.

Regards,
MG

I guess I should TTOC on this one.

By the way, I have felt, more so recently, like you are basically/mostly discussing topics in good faith. I am troubled, however, that when push comes to shove, as in this instance, you will ‘move on’ and not say anything in response to what was obviously BS by a poster that you would just as not wrangle with.

I don’t fault you for that, in a way. It takes two to tango. Better to sit out the dance.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

The poster that made the hullabaloo said:



I had/have no idea how this could be extrapolated from what I have now posted in its complete context. It’s literally a bunch of BS.

I will not respond or communicate directly with this poster, and a few others,because over and over again I’ve had to deal with BS and questionable tactics.

As it is, I’ve spent too much time on this ‘mountain out of a molehill’

Done.

Also, knowing that you and others may very well try to spin things in order to protect ‘one of your own’.

Expected.

Regards,
MG

I guess I should TTOC on this one.

The troll keeps trolling, without addressing your point.

[malkie]

I guess I should TTOC on this one.

By the way, I have felt, more so recently, like you are basically/mostly discussing topics in good faith. I am troubled, however, that when push comes to shove, as in this instance, you will ‘move on’ and not say anything in response to what was obviously BS by a poster that you would just as not wrangle with.

I don’t fault you for that, in a way. It takes two to tango. Better to sit out the dance.

Regards,
MG

My, My. Sorry to trouble you /s

Once again you are making assumptions that you are not entitled to make, and casting unnecessary aspersions. I don't need your advice about choosing when and with whom to dance.

However, other than that - at least for this comment - I will TTOC.

(far anyone with Scottish background: I generally don't tango, but you should see me dancing Drops O' Brandy (a.k.a. Strip the Willow) - in my kilt, of course! It's great aerobics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBCayM6aFJQ )

[Limnor]

(far anyone with Scottish background: I generally don't tango, but you should see me dancing Drops O' Brandy (a.k.a. Strip the Willow) - in my kilt, of course! It's great aerobics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBCayM6aFJQ )

Nicely done!

[malkie]

Limnor, I said I would return to this comment. I hope my answers here are what you were looking for.

If you're interested, I'll relate the details as I remember them, though it is a bit painful.

Thank you for offering to share, but please only do so if it feels okay, I’d never want to add to the hurt. But if talking about it helps, I’ll listen.

I rethought the details part, and think it's better to remain a bit vague.

A while ago I joined a Facebook group whose members had almost all been members of my branch when I was branch president. I was (If I recall correctly) a complete non-believer at that time, as were some others in the group.

During a discussion that involved several participants, someone, call him Bob, made a rather nasty remark aimed at me. I wrote a reply, but didn't send it. Activity on the thread stopped, and nothing more was said for several hours. Eventually I replied "Done!", and left the group. In a later private discussion between me and the group mod I found out that there had been quite a bit of activity in PMs during the pause, some pro and but mostly con the nasty remark. In the end the consensus was that nobody was willing to defend me because they didn't want to upset Bob. I was hurt, and refused several offers to rejoin the group after Bob apparently conceded that his remark was out of line. I never did rejoin, and eventually the mod stopped corresponding with me.

Writing it out now it seems trivial, but it still makes me quite sad to think of it.

I suppose you could say that I was no different with and without the facial hair, but you could also justify the view that I had passed a "test" of obedience. OTOH, my wife, who had never known me without the beard, was not at all happy, for quite some time.

This really confirms what has always made me uneasy about those kinds of “tests,” how quickly someone’s personal preference can be mistaken for God’s.

That story really says a lot about how a leader’s personal taste can suddenly turn into divine decree. This confirms by longstanding belief that no one should stand between a person and their relationship with God, beard or no beard, and is a good example of how these “tests” reveal more about the tester than the tested.

How could you independently confirm that “test” was one directed by God? I suppose you could say you received a witness that it was from God, but how could you know if that witness was reliable?

As I recall, I didn't think, and I didn't seek a witness of any sort: the Mission President had told the District President to convey a very specific instruction, and it was my duty to obey, and not to question. (Not quite the charge of the Light Brigade, however.)

The part about not checking the women actually made me laugh out loud.

I learned from that idea…My first thoughts are that I was conspicuously unsuccessful at the "mercy" part. However, I think it's a powerful idea, and worthy of serious consideration.

I appreciate that, but I probably should clarify that when I said “acting,” I actually did mean pretending. The way the book frames it, mercy often starts as performance: a person is told to imitate it, maybe even fake it, until it becomes something real. That’s what I find so striking: that compassion can be more rehearsal than a real expression from the heart.

This idea also occurs here:

It is not unusual to have a missionary say, ‘How can I bear testimony until I get one? How can I testify that God lives, that Jesus is the Christ and that the gospel is true? If I do not have such a testimony would that not be dishonest?’

Oh, if I could teach you this one principle! A testimony is to be found in the bearing of it. Somewhere in your quest for spiritual knowledge, there is that ‘leap of faith,’ as the philosophers call it. It is the moment when you have gone to the edge of the light and step into the darkness to discover that the way is lighted ahead for just a footstep or two. The spirit of man, as the scripture says, indeed is the candle of the Lord.

It is one thing to receive a witness from what you have read or what another has said; and that is a necessary beginning. It is quite another to have the Spirit confirm to you in your bosom that what you have testified is true. Can you not see that it will be supplied as you share it? As you give that which you have, there is a replacement, with increase!

https://rsc.BYU.edu/vol-1-no-1-2000/bea ... -testimony

I think the book—and maybe the church, I am not sure as I have no experiential evidence to support that view—encourages “mercy as performance” more so than a genuine expression of mercy.

One example is found here:

Alma 1 17 Nevertheless, they durst not lie, if it were known, for fear of the law, for liars were punished; therefore they pretended to preach according to their belief; and now the law could have no power on any man for his belief.

I realize this is framed as a “bad guy” doing so, but this method is consistent throughout the book.

And in Alma 32, the faith begins by “desiring to believe,” through what I see as a performative act, and not a true “changing of the heart.”

Across these episodes, the Book of Mormon consistently portrays faith, mercy, and charity as habits of imitation. A person is told to begin by acting as if the ideal were true, sometimes even pretending, and in doing so, becomes the thing desired.

Belief in the Book of Mormon is almost always learned by doing, and doing begins, quite literally, as pretending.

Understanding now how you meant "acting", the answer is a definite "Yes". A lot of the time I couldn't understand how and why I had this "power" in my hands to judge my fellow members. Some of them confessed pretty unpleasant things to me, either voluntarily, or when I asked (e.g., in a temple recommend interview), and I was often not as kind and understanding as I now think I should have been.

If I were to be kind to myself, I could say that the idea of knowing that I was acting could be filed under imposter syndrome.

by the way, I do not recommend to anyone to seek the position of bishop/branch president or higher in the hierarchy, unless you actually enjoy hearing about really ugly experiences.

Who knows, if we hadn't come to Canada I might have risen to District President - or beyond!!

I’m actually glad you didn’t.

[Limnor]

In the end the consensus was that nobody was willing to defend me because they didn't want to upset Bob. I was hurt, and refused several offers to rejoin the group after Bob apparently conceded that his remark was out of line. I never did rejoin, and eventually the mod stopped corresponding with me.

Writing it out now it seems trivial, but it still makes me quite sad to think of it.

I don’t know that it is trivial—more likely it was another grain of sand added to the pile that led to your exit.

I’ve seen what you described happen here at times: when someone steps in to defend another poster, it is sometimes framed as part of a coordinated attack “by one of your own” on the church rather than simple empathy, twisting basic decency into conspiracy.

That approach, whether in your experience or here, doesn’t paint representatives of the church in a very positive light.

* I really liked the Charge of the Light Brigade reference—it captures the mix of duty and absurdity perfectly.

If I were to be kind to myself, I could say that the idea of knowing that I was acting could be filed under imposter syndrome.

I really appreciate your honesty and willingness to open up about your experiences, malkie. It provides insight to an outsider that helps define the faith tradition and its mechanics in practice.

Your responses have confirmed my thoughts about the LDS faith system having a foundation in “pretending.”

Your description of that “method”— performing the role because it’s expected, while inwardly wondering whether you’re qualified to play it—and the connection between acting and imposter syndrome fits with what I was getting at.

Do you see an overlap between performing faith and performing authority as a methodology within the institution on a larger scale?