Status of MormonThink events

[Guest]

For Pete's sake, Why Me, bias is a noun. Biased is an adjective. Say the site is biased, not the site is bias.

And sorry, your repeated assertions that there is no balance on the site ring hollow. It's obvious that your conception of balance can only be achieved if one presents an argument with the conclusion that the church is true.

[_ludwigm]

For Pete's sake, Why Me, bias is a noun. Biased is an adjective. Say the site is biased, not the site is bias.

"... need to understand that certain words in the Mormon vocabulary have slightly different meanings and connotations than ..."
- said President Newsroom (The Official Resource for News Media, Opinion Leaders and the Public)


So, part of speech definitions don't count in Mormon vocabulary.

FYI:

In grammar, a part of speech (also a word class, a lexical class, or a lexical category) is a linguistic category of words (or more precisely lexical items), which is generally defined by the syntactic or morphological behaviour of the lexical item in question. Common linguistic categories include noun and verb, among others.

[Guest]

And here are the recommended books for polygamy:

Polygamy is probably best understood by reading books. You can really get a sense of what the people that practiced it went through. Some of the best books on polygamy have been written by faithful LDS authors and can be purchased at Deseret Books or at BYU.

Mormon Polygamy: A History, Richard S. Van Wagoner (make sure to read the 2nd edition). http://www.lds-mormon.com/polygamy.shtml

In Sacred Loneliness; The plural wives of Joseph Smith, Todd Compton. http://www.signaturebooks.com/excerpts/insacred.htm

see FARMS favorable review: http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=290

Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, Linda King Newell,Valeen Tippetts Avery.
Recommended by the official church historian, Leonard Arrington. It's one of the books that was allowed to be read for class assignment at BYU. It's not dedicated to polygamy but deals with it quite a bit - mostly from Emma's perspective. Available at Deseret Books.

http://www.amazon.com/Mormon-Enigma-Emm ... 0252062914

Wife No. 19 or the story of A Life in Bondage, Ann Eliza Young
Available online here: http://www.mazeministry.com/Mormonism/1 ... wnload.htm

No Man Knows My history, Fawn Brodie.
Not a book dedicated to polygamy but deals with it quite a bit. Fawn Brodie was President David O'McKay's niece. It's available for free at most libraries.

Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power, D. Michael Quinn.
Written while BYU History Professor had access to church archives. Covers Joseph Smith and beginnings of Mormonism.

Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power, D. Michael Quinn.
Covers Brigham Young and into Utah.

Not very positive toward polygamy.

You are trying to make the case that MT is biased because it links to critical works on polygamy. But you pointedly fail to mention that MT includes an entire section on the apologetic response to the issues raised. And included on the polygamy page are the following links to church/apologetic discussion of the issue. Whyme, can you point to one web site run by the LDS Church or church apologists that links to this board or to sites like MT or sites critical of the church? That's the power of the Mormon Think web site: they are not afraid to allow the faithful to counter or refute anything on the site. And MT is not afraid to link directly to the church's own sites and the apologetic sites. But the church is clearly afraid to do the same. Here is what MT links to regarding polygamy:

http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/polyandry.pdf
http://www.mormon-polygamy.org/
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences ... ygamy.html
http://www.meetmormonmissionaries.org/m ... ygamy.html
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html
http://farms.BYU.edu/display.php?table=review&id=290
http://www.fairlds.org/Mormonism_201/m20117b.html
http://ldspatriot.wordpress.com/mormoni ... -polygamy/
http://journalofdiscourses.org/Vol_16/JD16-160.html
http://www.ldshistory.net/pc/merlbyu.htm
http://en.fairmormon.org/Castration_in_Utah
http://en.fairmormon.org/Template:PolygamyWiki

If you know of any books published by the church on the history of polygamy, or any mention of the history of polygamy in church manuals or other church publications that discuss the issue in anything close to the scholarly depth with which Compton, Quinn, Newell, Avery, Van Wagoner, and Brodie do why don't you let us all know about them. I am willing to bet that the editors of MT would have no problem linking to them. I'd like to see a "faithful" Mormon site reciprocate. Maybe you can point us to one. I won't hold my breath.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Not very positive toward polygamy.

I can't think of too much anyone could say about polygamy that would be positive. What kinds of things should people be saying about polygamy?

But as Equality pointed out, they linked to FAIR and other apologetic resources, so you can't say they aren't being balanced.

[_Themis]

Not very positive toward polygamy.

I can't think of too much anyone could say about polygamy that would be positive. What kinds of things should people be saying about polygamy?

But as Equality pointed out, they linked to FAIR and other apologetic resources, so you can't say they aren't being balanced.

Perhaps whyme can show some apologetic sites that have this kind of balance in showing both sides of the issues.

[_Cylon]

However, regarding the FAIR article on the Heber C. Kimball quote, I do think they bring up some valid points that should at least be considered. I have emailed Mormonthink to suggest they add a link to that article on their page.

Mormonthink has updated the Polygamy page, they now link to that FAIR rebuttal. That's because they only want people to know anti-mormon spin, right?

[_why me]

Mormonthink has updated the Polygamy page, they now link to that FAIR rebuttal. That's because they only want people to know anti-mormon spin, right?

Or it is because they realize that they have not been fair with their interpretation. Here is the point. The site is not faith promoting. The facts about polygamy or any other event can be faith promoting. But in the mormonthink case, I see no faith promoting stance at all. And for people who are still members of the church it is not good to lead people away. Thus, their problem with the church authorities.

[_Delor]

Or it is because they realize that they have not been fair with their interpretation. Here is the point. The site is not faith promoting. The facts about polygamy or any other event can be faith promoting. But in the mormonthink case, I see no faith promoting stance at all. And for people who are still members of the church it is not good to lead people away. Thus, their problem with the church authorities.

Being "Faith promoting" is not the issue, the issue is about being "truth promoting"! Now there are certain truths that aren't very helpful ... - but then there is the question of whether the act of revealing a truth and (as a consequence) another person's "testimony" of something that wasn't so being damaged is:

a) a bad thing and
b) ought to be punished by any organisation that wants to retain any intellectual and moral integrity?

[_Drifting]

Mormonthink has updated the Polygamy page, they now link to that FAIR rebuttal. That's because they only want people to know anti-mormon spin, right?

Or it is because they realize that they have not been fair with their interpretation. Here is the point. The site is not faith promoting. The facts about polygamy or any other event can be faith promoting. But in the mormonthink case, I see no faith promoting stance at all. And for people who are still members of the church it is not good to lead people away. Thus, their problem with the church authorities.

The site articulates information about the restoration of the Gospel and Church doctrine. That the information relating to those things is classed as "not faith promoting" should be ringing some alarm bells with you...

[_Mary]

Here's the latest version of events from the Mormon Newsroom.

Fortunately, reporters from the New York Times and Salt Lake Tribune dig deeper and get it right. The Times’ Laurie Goodstein correctly writes that this member is being disciplined “because he is an apostate who is trying to lead church members astray,” and she includes several quotes that correctly claim that Church members do not face discipline for their political opinions. The Tribune’s Peggy Fletcher Stack also notes that this member’s leaders “never brought up [politics] … in their exchange with him.”

The full Church statement says:

It is patently false for someone to suggest they face Church discipline for having questions or for expressing a political view. The Church is an advocate of individual choice. It is a core tenet of our faith. Church discipline becomes necessary only in those rare occasions when an individual’s actions cannot be ignored while they claim to be in good standing with the Church. Every organization, whether religious or secular, must be able to define where its boundaries begin and end.

Church disciplinary matters are confidential. While some may want to make their version of an issue public, the Church will not discuss the private lives of individuals. To do so would be a betrayal of confidences and would affect others besides the person facing discipline. These matters are handled by local Church leaders and are done in an attitude of love and caring. There are a number of possible outcomes to a Church disciplinary proceeding, only one of which is excommunication, which would be the most severe and least common result. However, regardless of the determined course of action, the goal is to help an individual put his or her life in order by providing all of the support we can offer.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/m ... ptember-25

There are so many problems with this, I don't know where to start.


How about this one...

Laurie Goodstein correctly writes that this member is being disciplined “because he is an apostate who is trying to lead church members astray,”

I'm truly disappointed. Thus the demonization begins, without any attempt to give the man a fair hearing.