Joseph Smith--the best 'wing man' Brigham Young ever had

[MG 2.0]

*snip

A bunch of BS.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Again, Marcus fails to join in the actual conversation. She just follows me around with the intent to cause distress time after time after time. And she gets some kind of pleasure out of doing so. That's borderline sadism.

A troll. Sickening.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

Yes, I think that everyone would acknowledge that Elizabeth had unfortunate beliefs about Martha's character.

That's an interesting way of putting it. What do you mean by "unfortunate"?

It should also be acknowledged that Martha and her parents undoubtedly had the same kinds of unfavorable opinions about Elizabeth's character.

Do you have evidence that Martha and her parents said or did anything to impugn Elizabeth's character?

I agree that Elizabeth's testimony has to be taken seriously. All evidence should always be taken seriously.

Seriously enough to listen to what she had to say in regard to her own sister?

However, Elizabeth's affidavit makes no mention of Bennett nor of any potential influence he might have had over Martha.

Martha and her family moved to St. Louis. Shortly after her arrival, in July 1842, John C. Bennett met with Martha Brotherton solicited her affidavit detailing her experiences with Joseph Smith and the church's leaders. He was already there. Elizabeth Brotherton and Mary McIlwrick, Martha’s sisters, later swore and subscribed their affidavits defending Joseph Smith and attacking Martha's credibility on August 27, 1842.

AFTER Martha's affidavit.

Regards,
MG

Of course it came after Martha's affidavit. Theirs was a reaction to Martha's affidavit--the sworn statement threatened to expose them. The Church and all of its members were still lying to the world, the surrounding community, and each other. They were swearing each other to secrecy about their sex cult.

I'm not one who generally approves of calling the LDS Church a cult, but in this instance, there's no other word for the Church's behavior. Everything surrounding polygamy in the Nauvoo era involved lying, coercion, manipulation, threats, and clandestine trysts. It was a nasty, repulsive business. No one was safe. Anyone who pushed back on this was either called a trollop or had his press destroyed. The women suffered the worst. There's no credible defense that can be offered for any of this, but I think you should definitively keep trying.

[Morley]

A woman tries to leave a cult. She says one of the cult leaders attempted to corner her into having sex with him. Her sister and brother-in-law, who are members of the cult, push back, saying don't believe her, she's a liar.

Over the years, the cult's leaders deny that they a polygamous sect, deny that they pressing young girls into 'marriage,' deny that they are coercing women, who are already married, into adulterous unions with promises of celestial glory. History proves the cult to have done everything they denied.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Thank you, Morley. I had come to a similar conclusion about MG’s argument, but it has been so muddled that I was uncertain of the point.

I agree, Morley unpacked it very well. The sentence for me that gets right to the heart of the matter is this:

...In spite of this, for some reason, you continue to suggest that this must be the case...

There has been so much insupportable innuendo offered up by MG over the years, it's no wonder Everybody Wang Chung just calls him a fibber, now. There's only so much one can take of that type of argument.

Funny anecdote, during the Hamblin-Jenkins debate, MG stated that Jenkins' positions and arguments could not be taken seriously, because MG knew for a fact he was "biased." After pages and pages of innuendo about this alleged bias, it finally comes out that MG just assumed Jenkins was biased because he has a religious background. When it was pointed out that Hamblin also had a religious background and therefore could also be assumed to be biased, MG said no, because Hamblin's religion was the right one and Jenkin's was the wrong one. (!!!!!!!!!!) It was a comedy of ridiculous errors and botched argument and sliding innuendo and so many, many layers of Motte and Bailey fallacies that it took several dozen pages just to get back to the debate Jenkins and Hamblin were literally having. All over sly innuendos that had no basis in anything factual, but were borne only and just of the bigotry in a certain gymnast's shallow mind.

That was classic Fibber.

[MG 2.0]

A woman tries to leave a cult. She says one of the cult leaders attempted to corner her into having sex with him. Her sister and brother-in-law, who are members of the cult, push back, saying don't believe her, she's a liar.

Over the years, the cult's leaders deny that they a polygamous sect, deny that they pressing young girls into 'marriage,' deny that they are coercing women, who are already married, into adulterous unions with promises of celestial glory. History proves the cult to have done everything they denied.

I think that you might see that you are using loaded words/language in order to steer us away from the fact that before Elizabeth came out against her sister it would appear that for all intents and purposes, they were close. There isn't any evidence to the contrary. That Elizabeth would risk the loss of that relationship by coming forward and disclosing what she saw as the truth in regard to her sister and the influence John C. Bennett may have had over her is heartrending in one way and can be seen as courageous in another.

What you see as "adulterous unions" or "cultish behavior" were/was seen differently by those that saw the hand of God in the restoration of the sealing blessings from heaven. We need to always remember that perspective and knowledge of things may vary from person to person on a number of factors. As an unbeliever you will see things differently than those that may have lived at the time and/or those that now see that these folks were possibly doing the best they could with what they had.

Regards,
MG

[I Have Questions]

A woman tries to leave a cult. She says one of the cult leaders attempted to corner her into having sex with him. Her sister and brother-in-law, who are members of the cult, push back, saying don't believe her, she's a liar.

Over the years, the cult's leaders deny that they a polygamous sect, deny that they pressing young girls into 'marriage,' deny that they are coercing women, who are already married, into adulterous unions with promises of celestial glory. History proves the cult to have done everything they denied.

That’s been a trend throughout the Church’s history. They only tell the truth once there is no other option as someone else has let the cat out of the bag. Denial followed by “Of course, that’s what we’ve been saying all along”. But no apology. Never an apology. Not even after their denials over financial wrongdoing were shown to be lies. I believe the phrase “Lying For The Lord” was coined because it was so prevalent.

[I Have Questions]

What you see as "adulterous unions" or "cultish behavior" were/was seen differently by those that saw the hand of God in the restoration of the sealing blessings from heaven.

Joseph had sex with women to whom he wasn’t legally married. Is there an alternative definition of “adultery” with which I’m unfamiliar?

[Marcus]

...I think that you might see that you are using loaded words/language in order to steer us away from the fact that before Elizabeth came out against her sister it would appear that for all intents and purposes, they were close. There isn't any evidence to the contrary. That Elizabeth would risk the loss of that relationship by coming forward and disclosing what she saw as the truth in regard to her sister and the influence John C. Bennett may have had over her is heartrending in one way and can be seen as courageous in another...

Interesting. Let's try flipping this argument:

...I think that you might see that you are using loaded words/language in order to steer us away from the fact that before [Martha made her affidavit, which her sister read] it would appear that for all intents and purposes, they were close. There isn't any evidence to the contrary. That [Martha] would risk the loss of that relationship by coming forward and disclosing what she saw as the truth in regard to [the behavior of Young and Kimball] is heartrending in one way and can be seen as courageous in another...

Hmm.. It works both ways! But, let's go a step further and go back to the original and remove the Wasatch Front passive-aggressive tone and content:

...I think that you might see that you are using loaded words/language in order to steer us away from the fact that before Elizabeth came out against her sister[responded] it would appear that for all intents and purposes, they were close. [In my opinion] there isn't any evidence to the contrary. That Elizabeth would risk the loss of that relationship by coming [come] forward and disclose what she saw as the truth[her opinion] in regard to [the behavior of Young and Kimball] [in my opinion, can be interpreted ] heartrending in one way and can be seen as courageous in another [in various ways].

That's a little better, but still, it needs some qualifying. Let's be radical and acknowledge the difference between facts and opinion:

...I think that you might see that you are using loaded words/language in order to steer us away from the fact that before Elizabeth came out against her sister[responded] it would appear that for all intents and purposes, they were close, [in my opinion]. there isn't any evidence to the contrary. That Elizabeth would risk the loss of that relationship by coming [come] forward and disclose what she saw as the truth[her opinion] in regard to [the behavior of Young and Kimball] [in my opinion, can be interpreted ] heartrending in one way and can be seen as courageous in another [in various ways]. [I have not researched any of this, it's just that my side has to be correct and so I am asserting an interpretation with no evidence whatsoever.]

Clean it up a bit and what do we have:

...I think that before Elizabeth responded it would appear that they were close, in my opinion. That Elizabeth would come forward and disclose her opinion in regard to the behavior of Young and Kimball, in my opinion, can be interpreted in various ways.*

*I have not researched any of this, it's just that my side has to be correct and so I am giving my opinion and asserting it as true, with no evidence whatsoever. I will also ignore all evidence that disagrees with my opinion.

There we go.

[I Have Questions]

Clean it up a bit and what do we have:

...I think that before Elizabeth responded it would appear that they were close, in my opinion. That Elizabeth would come forward and disclose her opinion in regard to the behavior of Young and Kimball, in my opinion, can be interpreted in various ways.*

*I have not researched any of this, it's just that my side has to be correct and so I am giving my opinion and asserting it as true, with no evidence whatsoever. I will also ignore all evidence that disagrees with my opinion.

There we go.

That last paragraph is spot on.