Joseph Smith's Conspiracy

[_wenglund]

Let's say a co-participant on the board posted an analogy which fit near perfectly and illuminated all the relevant aspects of the issue being discussed on the thread.

Let's say that, insteead of addressing that analogy, I merely follow that post with a sensationalized and intentionally pejorative analogy in a way suggesting that it, too, is relevant, though in truth it is not--at least not in any meaningful and significant way. In fact, there are aspects that run counter to elements of the issue being discussed.

Would that be intellectually honest?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

Lets say an apologist developed an analogy in a hopeless attempt to defend his idol.

Would that be intellectually honest?

[_marg]

Lets say an apologist developed an analogy in a hopeless attempt to defend his idol.

Would that be intellectually honest?

No it wouldn't be. I've seen this same sort of idol worship behavior which leads to a "protect at all costs even if one has to be intellectually dishonest" attitude on an internet message board for a pop star. The young fans would quite literally go berserk if anyone so much as slightly criticized him. What made it rather interesting is that unbenownest to the young fans, the pop star had a prankster side and would post as various people criticizing himself...I think just to see how the fans would react. It got to be quite absurd with none of the fans catching on to the game even though it got more and more ridiculous in time.

[_wenglund]

Lets say an apologist developed an analogy in a hopeless attempt to defend his idol.

Would that be intellectually honest?

No it wouldn't be. I've seen this same sort of idol worship behavior which leads to a "protect at all costs even if one has to be intellectually dishonest" attitude on an internet message board for a pop star. The young fans would quite literally go berserk if anyone so much as slightly criticized him. What made it rather interesting is that unbenownest to the young fans, the pop star had a prankster side and would post as various people criticizing himself...I think just to see how the fans would react. It got to be quite absurd with none of the fans catching on to the game even though it got more and more ridiculous in time.

Assuming that what you both say is true, then the best way to demonstrate the alleged intellectual dishonesty is to reasonably and rationally point out where the analogy isn't relavant and doesn't apply in any meaningful way to the case in question, and provide credible evidence of "idol worship" (not to be confused with honor and repsect for one's religious leaders). That certanly beats insipidly dismissive comments like what you just proffered--comments which may be viewed as an inability to rationally engage the analogy. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_marg]

Assuming that what you both say is true, then the best way to demonstrate the alleged intellectual dishonesty is to reasonably and rationally point out where the analogy isn't relavant and doesn't apply in any meaningful way to the case in question, and provide credible evidence of "idol worship" (not to be confused with honor and repsect for one's religious leaders). That certanly beats insipidly dismissive comments like what you just proffered--comments which may be viewed as an inability to rationally engage the analogy. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Intellectual dishonesty is a judgement call. Human nature is such that people generally want to preserve beliefs particularly those they have a good deal of emotional vested interests in. Everyone holds biases. People vary in their ability to critically evaluate objectively and their ability to be objective will also likely vary in what it is they are evaluating. It is only natural that if one has emotional investment in a religion, an organization, a friend, a relative, a religious leader, a message board..whatever the investment that individual will want to protect their investment from harm. They become intellectually dishonest when they irrationally ignore, distort, deny, attack others to deflect instead of appreciating where the evidence leads to. People outside not emotional vested in that interest can often times appreciate...the intellectual game playing which goes on for that individual to protect their interest. That's not to say that people can not be objective and follow the evidence to a rational, logical, most likely conclusion, But often times...there is emotional reason why an individual simply won't evaluate the evidence with intellectual honesty.

Now you ask where in your post did you indicate intellectual dishonesty. I'd say in your set up of your analogy, in which you made the assumption Smith wouldn't have had sex with other women he may have sealed himself to. You also Wade have a tendancy to attempt to set up analogies which fit into a particular game you either create ..or in this case it's created for you...the game of Mormonism. That's intellectually dishonest Wade..because you are not reasoning effectively and honestly. You are limiting what it is you will evaluate.

As far as providing credible evidence of "Idol" worship. It's obvious that Smith is viewed as an idol. Let's face it, anyone who believes an individual was a representative of a God..views that representative as an idol. The proof of the matter is in how you defend Smith in your arguments. Just as the pop star I mentioned could not be viewed negatively by fans, and they couldn't even perceive he'd play games with them and actually be the one criticizing himself...you too are blinded by your devotion..idol worship of Smith and can't perceive Smith by what the evidence indicates. So you want to protect and come out with unrealistic arguments...such as he didn't have sex with the women he was sealed to.

[_wenglund]

Now you ask where in your post did you indicate intellectual dishonesty. I'd say in your set up of your analogy, in which you made the assumption Smith wouldn't have had sex with other women he may have sealed himself to. You also Wade have a tendancy to attempt to set up analogies which fit into a particular game you either create ..or in this case it's created for you...the game of Mormonism. That's intellectually dishonest Wade..because you are not reasoning effectively and honestly. You are limiting what it is you will evaluate.

First of all, the analogy wasn't intended to be specific to Joseph Smith, but related to all three male principles named in Martha's affidavit (Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and Heber Kimball).

Secondly, I have good reason to assume that Joseph didn't have sex (see his consistent comments chastity and fidelity and his repeated condemnation of adultry, etc., to that effect throughout his history), and no cridible evidence that he did, let alone the same for Brigham and Heber. Ironically, though, for you to accuse me of intellectual dishonesty, requires that you assume that he did have sex, thus indicting yourself by your own "reasoning". Way to go.

Third, rather than engage my analogy as requested, you have merely dismissed it as some alleged "game", sans evidence, and reiterated your baseless claim of intellectual dishonesty. Now, I don't know about you, but I think it more intellectually dishonest to accuse someone of something, and fail to provide reasonable evidence for your charge, than it is to carefully craft a reasonable and viable analogy to bear out my point. In other words, you are doing the very thng you are falsely accusing me of.

Now, if you wish to move beyond your baseless accusations, and chance actually substantiating them (not to be confused with baseless reiterations and more baselss accusations), then I would be pleased to hear it.

Better yet, try honestly engaging the analogy and the questions associated therewith.

As far as providing credible evidence of "Idol" worship. It's obvious that Smith is viewed as an idol. Let's face it, anyone who believes an individual was a representative of a God..views that representative as an idol. The proof of the matter is in how you defend Smith in your arguments. Just as the pop star I mentioned could not be viewed negatively by fans, and they couldn't even perceive he'd play games with them and actually be the one criticizing himself...you too are blinded by your devotion..idol worship of Smith and can't perceive Smith by what the evidence indicates. So you want to protect and come out with unrealistic arguments...such as he didn't have sex with the women he was sealed to.

I asked for credible evidence, not your biased and ill-informed opinion. Viewing someone as a representative of God does not, in any reasonable way, constitute idolatry. Certainly, while I do view Joseph Smith as a representative of God, I do not view him as an idol (I say this as the ultimate expert for how I think and believe), nor could anyone reasonably interpret that from what I say and how I have defended Joseph--precisely because I don't, in fact, view him as an idol.

The fact that I weigh and interpret the evidence differently from you, is merely an indication of our different evaluative and interpretive methodologies, not alleged idolatry on either of our part.

Anyway, how about answering the questions that I asked via my analogy? Then, if you have some specific disputes as to whether my questions are relevant to the issue at hand, we can discuss each of one at at time. That would be the intellectually honest thing to do.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_marg]

Secondly, I have good reason to assume that Joseph didn't have sex (see his consistent comments chastity and fidelity and his repeated condemnation of adultry, etc., to that effect throughout his history), and no cridible evidence that he did, let alone the same for Brigham and Heber.

While others may play your game Wade...I'm not interested. I'll let your posts stand or fall on their own as to whether or not you indicate intellectual dishonesty in your argumentation.

Added note: it is a waste of time, arguing with individuals who are intellectually dishonest.

[_wenglund]

Secondly, I have good reason to assume that Joseph didn't have sex (see his consistent comments chastity and fidelity and his repeated condemnation of adultry, etc., to that effect throughout his history), and no cridible evidence that he did, let alone the same for Brigham and Heber.

While others may play your game Wade...I'm not interested. I'll let your posts stand or fall on their own as to whether or not you indicate intellectual dishonesty in your argumentation.

Added note: it is a waste of time, arguing with individuals who are intellectually dishonest.

I will gladly accept whatever excuse you may give for evading engaging (honestly or otherwise) my reasonable counter-argument, even if the excuse is unwittingly self-indicting and reaks of irony. And, I will bid you a fond farewell.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Analytics]

Let's simplify things a bit. Suppose I were NOT to have been legally married (i.e. via legal procedures and by those legally authorized by the state to perform marriages) to multiple women...

Would I be lying to say...

What you would be doing is telling less than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. What you’d be doing is intentionally misleading people who trusted you. What you’d be doing is establishing a pattern of always denying allegations related to polygamy: of denying the ones that were false, sort of false, sort of true, and absolutely true.

If you’d be able to look yourself in the eye and think that you had integrity despite being intentionally misleading, then that’s between you and your conscience. Just don’t ask me to believe what you have to say about the plurality of wives; you have forfeited your right to be a credible witness.

[_wenglund]

Let's simplify things a bit. Suppose I were NOT to have been legally married (i.e. via legal procedures and by those legally authorized by the state to perform marriages) to multiple women...

Would I be lying to say...

What you would be doing is telling less than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. What you’d be doing is intentionally misleading people who trusted you. What you’d be doing is establishing a pattern of always denying allegations related to polygamy: of denying the ones that were false, sort of false, sort of true, and absolutely true.

If you’d be able to look yourself in the eye and think that you had integrity despite being intentionally misleading, then that’s between you and your conscience. Just don’t ask me to believe what you have to say about the plurality of wives; you have forfeited your right to be a credible witness.

I think that is quite an extreme and un-empathetic way of looking at it. But, you are entitled to you own opinion. I just hope that you won't be judged so harshly throughout this life or the next.

Will you be responding to my other post (the one in which I am testing your argument using just the statements of Mary, John, and Vilate)?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-