Hi CKS,
I am not sure why you are making such a fus over this trite issue. Changing one's mind based on changing information doesn't seem to me to be all that controversial, let alone "weird" or "bizarre". In fact, I view it as quite reasonable and in line with common sense.
Anyway, to answer each of the gnats you keep straining:
cksalmon wrote:wenglund wrote:plenty of valid reasons to think this issue is still in
Contrary to what you suggest, I didn't say there were "many reasons", I said there were "plenty of reasons". In this case, one reason, from multiple sources, was plenty in my mind.
Wade-- One reason, from multiple sources, does not equate with "plenty of reasons." Sorry. That's one reason, repeated multiple times. But, to play your game, please enlighten me as to the multiple sources from which you decided to question the sealing. I anxiously await your response.
I view it differently. To me, since the word "reasons" wasn't qualified, it may reasonably apply to either the number of secondary sources (people saying that they checked the Church records) as it does the number of primary sources (the Church records). In other words, as a rule of thumb, the more people there are who attest to a certain thing, the more believable that thing may be--i.e. the more valid reasons one has to beleive a certain thing. And, I can see no valid reason which would prevent me from legitimately viewing it this way (your baseless and dogmatic assertion notwithstanding)
Whatever the case may be, that is what I meant when I said "I have valid reasons". Take it or leave it.
By way of clarifying this menial point for you, though, when I read the statements on the thread in question about the sealing not showing up in the Church records, I didn't mentally note exactly who said them and how many people said them because my thoughts were more focused on the main issue--as one may see from my comments on that thread. All I remembered was that there had been multiple people attesting to the sealing not being in the church records. However, for your benefit, and because this appears to be so vital to you, I went back and checked, and found that Zeta-Flux and Charity had made those claims on that thread--I can't be certain what was said on other threads because I didn't pay attention to them.
Contrary to what you suggest, my innitially taking Don and VanWagoner at their word, and my later taking Beastie at her word, mitigates against your wild conjecture that I have been reticent to believe what critics say when it it contradicts what i believe (during the disput, I had yet to formulate a belief one way or the other, but was perfectly content to test all the data to see what it all suggests).
Do you not read your own posts? You did not, apparently take Van Wagoner at his word, because, after being presented with his citation, you continued to assert here on this very thread that the matter was in dispute. That's not a wild conjecture, Wade. That's just called "English." How on earth can you suggest that you took Van Wagoner at his word and then dispute his citation of the relevant document.
Aside from you presuming to know what I have said and meant better than me (the ultimate authority on what I say and think), you evidently have a problem comprehending sequences of events--i.e. you mistakenly assume that what I may have thought at one point in the conversation, is what I must have thought all along, and this in spite of me explicitly setting forth a sequence of events that reasonably demonstrate otherwise.
But, since you are unwilling to accept my word for what I thought and when I thought it, and have preferred instead to rely on your own baseless mind-reading skills in pressing this insignificant issue, let's look at the empirical evidence. You will note that you first mentioned the sealing in your OP on March 4th. Don then repeats the claim on the same page (post #12) and then again on page 5 (post #83), and others elsewhere in the thread went on to discuss it as though it were true (see Beasties claim to that affect above). I didn't enter the fray until March 6th (post #100). And, of the 15 posts from me on that thread, there was not a single one claiming the sealings were in dispute, and in fact I explicitly referred to your's and Don's claims as "evidence" (specifically "circumstancial evidence--see my first post on page 9). So, again, contrary to what you innitially suggested, and contrary to what you have persisted in asserting in spite of my authoritative correction, there is empirical evidence that I had accepted the sealings prior to comments from Zeta-flux and Charity that brought the issue into disput.
My considering VanWagoner to be a secondary source had nothing to do with whether he is a so-called "anti-Mormon" or not (I certainly have yet to call him that, nor would I consider him such--contrary to what you claim). Rather, it has everything to do with his being a secondary source (by definition, if someone cites an original source, the person doing the citing is a secondary source).
I never said that Van Wagoner was an "anti-Mormon." I was referring to your apparent reticence to take "anti-Mormon" citations of Van Wagoner at face value. You claim you did, but really you didn't, apparently, since you questioned that very citation later.
Whether you were refering to Van Wagoner or not, in your previous post, and in reference to what I have said on this matter, you did call me a "partisan" and claimed that I had an "'anti-Mormons-are-liars' and 'I-don't-have-to-believe-it-unless-someone-posts-an-image-file-of-the-original-document' attitude." And, as intimated, I have said nothing that could in any reasonable way be interpreted as suggesting anything of the sort. You have falsely accusing me.
You are also incorrect again. I did innitially accept your's and Don's claim about the sealings at face value (see above), and I have since accepted it at face value now that the disput has been resolved to my satisfaction.
Contrary to what you suggest, I intitially considered, and do now consider Vanwagoner's statement as confirmed unless there is evidence that brings it again in dispute.
You initially considered Van Wagoner's statement as confirmed, but then chose to cite multiple instances of the same singular reason, per your report, for discounting it as legitimate?
Yes, I accepted, at face value, what you and Don had claimed about the sealings (i.e. I accepted multiple third-party claims from critics about a then unnamed secondary source for the sealings), and I did not consider the claims to be in dispute until it was disputed by Zeta-flux and Charity (who were multiple second-party sources regarding current Church records). I later viewed the sealings as no longer in disput when Beastie mentioned that T-Shirt had located the sealings in the Church records (i.e. I accepted, at face value, a third-party claim from a critic regarding a secondary source about the sealings showing up in the current Church records). I see nothing even remotely controversial in all of this, and I think my actions were rather liberal in what evidence I was willing to accept at face value from either side. Certainly, I see nothing "weird" or "bizarre" in what I did.
You have yet to indicate for what legitimate reason you even disputed the claim in the first place. Was it second-hand information on MADB? That's not in keeping with your methodology, is it? Again, I'd like to have you bear record of these multiple instances of the same singular claim that equates with "plenty of reasons" (plural) but does not equate with "several" reasons (plural).
See above.
The truth of the matter is, Martha made no such claim about "barely off the boat". According to her own affidavit, she had been three weeks in Nauvoo at the time of the alleged incident. And, according to other historical records, we learn that she and her family had landed at Warsaw, Ill. (which is 20 miles from Nauvoo), in November of 1841. settled at that time in nearby Warren, and didn't travel to Nauvoo for at least a month and a half (the January of 1842--if Don's conjecture is to be believed), and if portions of her story are to be believed, they didn't arrive in Nauvoo until some time in February. Hardly "barely off the boat".
Okay, Wade, you're right: three weeks off boat is not the same as barely off the boat. I mean, three weeks is a lot of time. I meant to say "barely three weeks off the boat." Is that better?
Again, you seem to be having a problem comprehending sequences of events. Martha said she had been in NAUVOO for three weeks prior to the incident in question taking place. However, her boat didn't land in NAUVOO, but in WARSAW. She landed in WARSAW in the middle of November of 1841, and settled with her family in nearby WARREN. Her father sent a letter from WARREN around the middle of December indicating that he and his family had not been to NAUVOO, but that they planned to go in the next day or so. In other words, if the Brothertons had gone ahead as planned and left for NAUVOO the next day, then the math would make it at the very least seven weeks off the boat until the time of the alleged incident (4 weeks in Warren and 3 weeks in Nauvoo). However, in order for all of the elements of Martha's story to hold up empirically, the incident couldn't have happened until the middle of February (after Clayton had become Joseph Smith's clerk), which would add an additional 4 weeks to the mix, making a total of 11 weeks (nearly three months)--which, again, is hardly "just off the boat" as you said.
Will you identify your "plenty of reasons" (which does not mean multiple reasons, but really just a singular reason repeated many times) for discounting this claim?
Again, see above.
This seems really, truly silly:
I didn't say there were "many reasons", I said there were "plenty of reasons".
But, Wade, you wrote: "and plenty of valid reasons." Any way you slice it, that's a plural. "Plenty of valid reasons" (plural) means, to any native English speaker, more than one reason. Goodness. I would at least expect you to be consistent.
Yet again, see above.
PS. Does anyone else find this turn of events bizarre?
I find your view of this "turn of events" to be petty, counter-reasonable, and mistaken on a number of levels (likely a product of your evident prejudices manifest in the form of stereotyping that demonstrably doesn't apply to me). But, I wouldn't call it "bizarre".
And, by the way, your PM apologies are accepted.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-