Who has been where I am? Questioning. Where did you end up?

[_asbestosman]

Just because a man is called of and acts as a representative of God does not result in his being immune from criticism.

Even if you are right, I think that promising not to speak ill of them is a good enough reason--at least as long as we're not talking about another danger which makes breaking that promise more important (In other words, please break promises to molestors where they make you promise not to tell.)

Perhaps we are thinking of different Ensign articles. In the one I am referring to, Hinckley equated the act of criticizing with pride. He essentially said that in criticizing one arrogates to him or her self a superior position, which shows a lack of Christlike humility

I guess I'll have to look up that article. Even so, I think the scriptures point out that correction which is often mistaken for criticism is in fact a good thing. Unfortunately there are many shades of gray in between.

Edit: I'm looking for the article from President Hinckley and I cannot find it. If you can find it, please provide me with a reference. I have seen nothing from him linking criticism to pride.

[_moksha]

Thanks Sunstoned, I like that too. Not surprised it originated with Moksha. He has to be THE level-head and open-heart amongst us. Now, IF LDSism accepted nominations, as others churches do, eh ... Maybe too personal Mok, but what church positions have you held? Do now? Warm regards, Roger

Roger, I'm just fortunate they let me in the door on Sunday.

[_mms]

Mms, these are my answers. I am an active Church member.

1) Book of Abraham (missing papyrus theory strikes me as mostly ridiculous (sorry) and catalyst theory makes me assume too much fallibility w/ Joseph Smith for me to conclude he was who I have been taught he was)

Most likely this was just made up like any allegory. However, like other allegories, there are symbolic truths that can be gleaned from it. Those are what is truly important.

2) Polygyny/Polyandry -- No reasons for these practices whatsoever and seems a true "wart of warts" on the history of the church;

They were warts. Fortunately the practice has been abandoned for over a Century.

3) Book of Mormon anachronisms and other related issues;

See answer to #1.

4) One true church;

We have truth but so do others. We are all on our own individual spiritual pathway. For me, the Christian worship and fellowship of the Church of Jesus Christ, assists me on my spiritual pathway. That is what is critical for me.

5) Blacks and Priesthood -- always been an issue for me and cannot resolve it.

No need to resolve it, it has already been abolished. But how to reconcile the practice? In good conscience you can't. It was wrong and is indefensible. We just have to forgive the fallibility of those in the past who fostered this discriminatory practice.

Hope this helps.

I like this. This is a open and honest way of looking at things.

I have definitely read and considered the posts above, but I have enormous trouble with the idea that these responses can be true and the church can be good for me at the same time. If I believed/ultimately concluded what Moksha does (aside from her conclusion that the church assists her in her spiritual path), there would be no compelling reason whatsoever for me to retain my membership in the church in my opinion.

[_truth dancer]

Hi MMS...

I have definitely read and considered the posts above, but I have enormous trouble with the idea that these responses can be true and the church can be good for me at the same time. If I believed/ultimately concluded what Moksha does (aside from her conclusion that the church assists her in her spiritual path), there would be no compelling reason whatsoever for me to retain my membership in the church in my opinion.

Well first, Mok is a very cool dude! :-)

I think Moksha has a very unique way of embracing the church... (smile).

Having said this, I think it demonstrates how different people find ways of dealing with the truth about the church.

Once the "one and only true church" is eliminated, the belief in a prophet, a restoration, and Joseph Smith's story are gone, and one comes to terms with the life of Joseph Smith, the control issues, the LDS organization, etc. etc., then they seem to either stay in the church because it is a nice organization and helps them somehow, or for cultural support, (or something), OR, they release it and find something that fits better with their own reality or sense of goodness.

I think Mok is an exception in that he knows the issues, is open minded, and open hearted, and manages to remain a part of the church in his own way... which is most certainly not like the average member! (smile)

~dancer~

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Perhaps you can set forth the quote as I made it, and then with the deleted material, and explain how it is I misused it.

I'd be happy to.

In the last paragraph on page 213 in your FARMS Journal review of Will Bagley's book, you slaughtered a quote by William Bishop, apparently to further your argument that you "do not see how Bagley can place any faith in Lee's confession, particularly those written as Mormonism Unveiled." You go on to claim (bold mine for emphasis):

Lee wrote this confession with the assistance of William Bishop, his attorney. Bishop relied on these confessions to obtain his fee. As Bishop urged Lee to finish his work before his execution, he told Lee that he would be "'adding such facts ... as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public."

After many months of badgering by Mr. Scratch, you finally revealed the full text of the letter from Bishop to Lee, from which you gave the small quote above (but added the ellipses). The full text of that letter, however, demonstrates that Bishop did not say what you claim he did. Here is the relevant portion of that letter from Bishop to Lee (using the text you provided), bolding the words you omitted with ellipses:

I do most certainly wish and expect the remainder of your manuscript, and have this a telegraphed to you to send all my express, which I am certain will have been done before you receive this letter. I will at once go to work preparing it for the press adding such facts connected with the trial and history of the case as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public.

Clearly the "facts" Bishop was referring to were those connected with the trial and legal case, of which Bishop had personal knowledge. Your mutilation of the quote, however, suggested Bishop would make up facts about anything, including the massacre and later cover-up. That Bishop wanted Lee to tell the full truth is obvious from the latter part of Bishop's letter (which you also failed to quote):

I do wish you to write up your history fully from the time you came to Salt Lake, until the trial began -- giving a full statement of all the facts and doctrines connected with the Reformation and especially give me all the facts that will throw light upon or that were connected with the massacre and the Leading men of Utah as connected with it that his is if you have held anything back. In Justice to yourself and to me -- as well as your family 'tell it all.'

As to Dr. Quinn, again, he will support me as to his self-outing and will not deny it or the timing.

Have you asked him?

Why do you not write to his publisher and learn for yourself as I have learned directly from him?

Did Quinn speak "directly" to you about it?

Instead of continuing to libel Dr. Peterson over something that did not occur.

Truth is an absolute defense, counselor. My observations were based on Dan's own words on this bb -- he alone confessed to gossiping about Quinn, without any help from me.

[_guy sajer]

Hi MMS

I saw some of your posting at MAD. Sadly that is not the place to go for help with these things. Many of the TBMs there and so called apoloists are quick to pounce. Some will try to help but others, nope.

And this is not the place to get help either. There are many angry critics here who are very rough and will be. Some here may be encouraging but most won't. In fact many here will actively try to wrench you our of the Church.

Actually, I think quite the opposite. I sense that most here support MMS in his search and wish him success and happiness, however it turns out. I, as well as others, have no stake in the outcome other than we generally wish happiness for others. It care not whether MMS stays in Mormonism or goes. It's his life; his choice. I would only advise that whatever choice he makes, he does it with his eyes open and that he is true to himself (to the extent possible; we are all members of embedded networks that make atomistic behavior problematic).

In fact, I'd guess that if MMS were to talk to a. TBM or b. "angry" apostates, the latter would be more inclinded to wish MMS good luck and happiness in his quest, regardless of the outcome, than than the former.

[_rcrocket]

In the last paragraph on page 213 in your FARMS Journal review of Will Bagley's book, you slaughtered a quote by William Bishop, apparently to further your argument that you "do not see how Bagley can place any faith in Lee's confession, particularly those written as Mormonism Unveiled." You go on to claim (bold mine for emphasis):

Lee wrote this confession with the assistance of William Bishop, his attorney. Bishop relied on these confessions to obtain his fee. As Bishop urged Lee to finish his work before his execution, he told Lee that he would be "'adding such facts ... as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public."

After many months of badgering by Mr. Scratch, you finally revealed the full text of the letter from Bishop to Lee, from which you gave the small quote above (but added the ellipses). The full text of that letter, however, demonstrates that Bishop did not say what you claim he did. Here is the relevant portion of that letter from Bishop to Lee (using the text you provided), bolding the words you omitted with ellipses:

I do most certainly wish and expect the remainder of your manuscript, and have this a telegraphed to you to send all my express, which I am certain will have been done before you receive this letter. I will at once go to work preparing it for the press adding such facts connected with the trial and history of the case as will make the Book interesting and useful to the public.

Clearly the "facts" Bishop was referring to were those connected with the trial and legal case, of which Bishop had personal knowledge. Your mutilation of the quote, however, suggested Bishop would make up facts about anything, including the massacre and later cover-up. That Bishop wanted Lee to tell the full truth is obvious from the latter part of Bishop's letter (which you also failed to quote):

My goodness. This is the only quibble you have with a 65-page heavily footnoted article? Even Mr. Bagley himself has not disagreed with my quotes from the Bishop letter, and my article castigated him for not including this letter. He finally admitted to me that he should have referenced it.

In any event, "facts connected with the trial and history of the case" encompassed the whole world. Facts connected with the trial connote facts which came out during trial as well as procedure. The "case" is the client's file that one takes to court; it involves everything outside the lawyer's personal purview.

You will note that the definition of "case" at dictionary.com includes: "a set of facts giving rise to a legal claim, or to a defense to a legal claim." In other words, facts the attorney does not personally know.

Bishop was a seasoned lawyer; "connected with the trial and history of the case" enveloped the massacre and much more -- the confessions contain much detail about pre-Massacre crimes with which Lee would have no knowledge, but Bishop's Tribune reporter friends would have. (Indeed, the Huntington library file which contains Bishop's letters also contain correspondence from a SL Tribune reporter to his wife during the trial.) [xxx -- put here so I can find this post easier later]

So, when I edited my piece I had to continually be on the hunt for extraneous material to edit out. The ellipsed material was just such material -- it was redundant and, had it been added, would have only marginally strengthened my article. There are hundreds of examples of Bagley and Brooks doing the same sort of editing work in their books, as well as examples of my own work in publications of my own.

But, for a reader who may not read much academic literature or have an extensive library of such, I can see in hindsight how these ellipses can be seized upon for advantage; in further publications of mine I'll remember to assess that risk when editing.


rcrocket

[_Trevor]

Even if you are right, I think that promising not to speak ill of them is a good enough reason--at least as long as we're not talking about another danger which makes breaking that promise more important (In other words, please break promises to molestors where they make you promise not to tell.)

I sense that we will not agree on this, but I interpret this 'not speaking ill' quite differently. I think disagreeing with them is not to speak ill of them, and I believe that it is perfectly fine to voice disagreement, even criticism. As far as the predominant LDS interpretation of these things goes, I am probably totally off. That would be my guess, anyway, but I am not overly concerned about that. I think it is far worse to accept bad thinking than to oppose leaders who are in error. I can understand that you feel differently, and why, but I have made a conscious decision to choose the path of calling a spade a spade, no matter who is dealing it.

Edit: I'm looking for the article from President Hinckley and I cannot find it. If you can find it, please provide me with a reference. I have seen nothing from him linking criticism to pride.

I will look for it. I was not unaffected by the message, and I really had to grapple with what he was saying. I think it is an interesting read, in any case. by the way, for me 'evil speaking' would be something like slander and/or libel, not saying "I don't agree with what Elder X did or said, when....," nor satire, nor parody.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

My goodness. This is the only quibble you have with a 65-page heavily footnoted article?

I have other "quibbles," but this is the one you asked about.

Even Mr. Bagley himself has not disagreed with my quotes from the Bishop letter, and my article castigated him for not including this letter. He finally admitted to me that he should have referenced it.

Did you discuss with Bagley your misleading use of ellipses.

In any event, "facts connected with the trial and history of the case" encompassed the whole world.

Nope, they deal with the legal proceedings, but YOU used the ellipses to suggest Bishop's reference "encompassed the whole world." That's my beef with your use of the butchered quote.

Facts connected with the trial connote facts which came out during trial as well as procedure.

Bishop didn't write "facts coming out during the trial," so you shouldn't have assumed as much. Bishop was writing about his role and personal knowledge of the legal proceedings, and leaving the rest to Lee. By using the ellipses the way you did, you wiped out this distinction in order to support your argument that nothing in Lee's confessions could be relied on.

The "case" is the client's file that one takes to court; it involves everything outside the lawyer's personal purview.

"Facts connected with the trial" meant the legal proceedings; Bishop was leaving to Lee to write about the facts leading up to his arrest and trial. By using the ellipses, you misled the reader into thinking there was no distinction.

You will note that the definition of "case" at dictionary.com includes: "a set of facts giving rise to a legal claim, or to a defense to a legal claim." In other words, facts the attorney does not personally know.

It also means actions surrounding the legal proceeding itself. And by differentiating between this and what Lee knew, Bishop clearly was talking to his personal knowledge of the legal proceedings.

Bishop was a seasoned lawyer; "connected with the trial and history of the case" enveloped the massacre and much more -- the confessions contain much detail about pre-Massacre crimes with which Lee would have no knowledge, but Bishop's Tribune reporter friends would have.

Bishop was a seasoned lawyer, and he would never have told Lee (or anyone else) that he would simply make up facts, as you argue with the butchered quote.

So, when I edited my piece I had to continually be on the hunt for extraneous material to edit out. The ellipsed material was just such material -- it was redundant and, had it been added, would have only marginally strengthened my article.

It was not at all redundant -- you took out those few words to discard the distinction Bishop carefully made between what he would write and what Lee would write. The butchered quote was crucial to your argument that nothing in Mormonism Unveiled could be trusted or relied on. This was not simply an issue of editing.

There are hundreds of examples of Bagley and Brooks doing the same sort of editing work in their books, as well as examples of my own work in publications of my own.

Editing is one thing; changing a quote to help your argument is another.

But, for a reader who may not read much academic literature or have an extensive library of such, I can see in hindsight how these ellipses can be seized upon for advantage; in further publications of mine I'll remember to assess that risk when editing.

I think you should also ask FARMS to issue a correction or clarification.

[_rcrocket]

Even Mr. Bagley himself has not disagreed with my quotes from the Bishop letter, and my article castigated him for not including this letter. He finally admitted to me that he should have referenced it.

Did you discuss with Bagley your misleading use of ellipses.

Not thinking the quote was misleading, nor commenting that it was misleading, Bagley didn't mention it. He had the entire letter and my quote.

The "case" is the client's file that one takes to court; it involves everything outside the lawyer's personal purview.

You are certainly free to re-define language to suit your argument.

Bishop was a seasoned lawyer, and he would never have told Lee (or anyone else) that he would simply make up facts, as you argue with the butchered quote.

Uhh, but he did. One of Lee's biographers, Samuel Nyal Henrie, who did not have the benefit of the Huntington letter, argues that Lee's confessions were tampered with because it contains facts Lee could not have possibly have known. I am the first historian to have found the Huntington letter and used it to call into question the integrity of the Confessions, and Bagley has conceded to me that it is a letter he might have wanted to address.

There are hundreds of examples of Bagley and Brooks doing the same sort of editing work in their books, as well as examples of my own work in publications of my own.

Editing is one thing; changing a quote to help your argument is another.

Had I included the material, it would have made my argument marginally stronger.

I really think that is not necessary to ask FARMS for a retraction; particularly since my article has undergone rigorous scrutiny by experts. Flaws have been found (two typos on dates, for example; a typo on "first" when "second" should have been used, adn things like that). Not a one -- not one -- has identified the supposed flaw you rely upon to charge me with professional dishonesty and, in Scratch's case, grounds for a reason to contact my stake president. Anonymously, I might add.

You two really have such great courage. I really feel sorry for the two of you. Beating up on living people with reputations to defend behind the essential equivalence of a hooded mask.

rcrocket