St. Brigham at Sic et Non

[drumdude]

Daniel’s latest blog is a doozy. You really got his panties in a twist.

He calls himself a moron, which is unironically true. His response to continuing revelations of more LDS sex abuse is just to keep reposting the same old article. Ditto with any other hot button issue, he just trots out the same link.

I’m beginning to think Dan really is a lazy learner.

[Dr. Shades]

Daniel’s latest blog is a doozy. You really got his panties in a twist.

He wrote:

And, of course, if you’re seeking a nuanced understanding of history, you should probably turn for that to the person who, still as of this morning, continues to cite Ann Eliza Webb Dee Young Denning’s Wife No. 19 as a balanced account of detailed and unprejudiced historical fact. I can only aspire to such penetrating historical insight!

If a plural wife of Brigham Young ever wrote a contradictory account, let the proprietor post it. (I also note his recitation of all of her last names, implying that divorced people can't be trusted to tell the truth.)

Posts like his remind me of how Scientologists routinely tell us how ex-Scientologists' accounts about Scientology can't be trusted because they're simply embittered apostates with an axe to grind. So I'm sure the proprietor's appraisal of Scientology is informed strictly by its believing members and no other source.

[Kishkumen]

If I am looking to develop nuanced historical insight, I certainly won’t ignore her account!

Of course, he knows this. All of this is silly theater for the benefit of the fan club. No one called him a moron, either. Just pretty straightforward and predictable in these “arguments.” His reaction to perceived criticism of the LDS Church was the focus of my comments, not his take on history.

If he is going to recommend reading on Brigham Young on his blog, OF COURSE, it will include the LDS guy who says he wishes he could meet dear St. Brigham and not the non-LDS guy who provides a more critical take. We all understand that the math MUST end with a positive ledger for the LDS position or person.

What would happen if one day we were to click on Sic et Non and see:

“It deeply sorrows me to learn that Elder Jones violated gospel principles and his covenants to engage in dishonest profiteering.”

I mean, forget about it! Never would that happen. It is not that a GA past, present, or future never could do such a thing. Of course, they have and certainly could. But the earth would collapse on itself before you would read about it, not to mention such comments about it, on Sic et Non. Such a thing is outside the lane of the proprietor. He is very disciplined in sticking to the story that everything LDS is in the balance very good indeed.

That is not a result of a failure of intelligence. It is a result of deeply tenacious loyalty to his first love: the LDS Church.

It can’t be helped that such unswerving devotion in the face of regular human foibles and failures would start to lack credibility in the eyes of those who are wary of consistently sunny narratives. The fact that we also say negative things about his first love makes us pretty bad characters.

Oh well. I accept that we are going to be painted unfairly over there. Honestly, I commend the proprietor for being a decent fellow toward me on the whole. I am capable of handling the contradiction between his caricatures of what I say about the LDS Church and the pleasant communications we have had in other venues. I trust he is too. Sic et Non is where I must ever be a very unreasonable person so long as I post negative comments about things LDS where he can read them.

[drumdude]

I am capable of handling the contradiction between his caricatures of what I say about the LDS Church and the pleasant communications we have had in other venues. I trust he is too. Sic et Non is where I must ever be a very unreasonable person so long as I post negative comments about things LDS where he can read them.

That’s really the most important difference between here and there. You can drop the pretense and game playing here and he cannot.

It must be exhausting for Dan always dumbing down the discussion for his followers.

[Kishkumen]

That’s really the most important difference between here and there. You can drop the pretense and game playing here and he cannot.

It must be exhausting for Dan always dumbing down the discussion for his followers.

When lawyers step into the court room, they speak as lawyers. When apologists blog about the LDS Church, the results are apologetic in the broadest sense.

For DCP, it is a war he is fighting to protect the Kingdom of God. In that war it is not his job to be fair, understanding, nuanced, or anything else that would take away from his effectiveness as a staunch defender of the gospel. His fans, supporters, and leaders expect him to play that part, and he delivers. His part is "PhD-bearing man of culture and sophistication who is a deeply faithful Mormon protecting the LDS Church against all criticism and critics (all unreasonable and rooted in baffling and inscrutable [sub rosa, Satanic] causes)."

One thing that has always amused me, however, is the fierce LDS allergic reactions to anyone, anywhere, saying anything that is negative or could be taken as negative about the LDS Church. I am not just talking about DCP. I am talking about the Mormon community in general. Heck, it gets the better of me if I hear someone else outside the LDS community talking smack about it.

It is like the stereotypical pipsqueak who looks for opportunities to feel aggrieved so he can raise his fists and challenge others to prove his manliness. If there is a Sunstone magazine with a five-figure readership where something critical is said, Elder Zion gets up at General Conference and before a global audience subtly ridicules it as insignificant while suggesting it is a Satanic blight on the Kingdom. You can change some of the variables here and slot in this board.

As Flamming said the other day (parroting the Mopologetic position), this board is insignificant, and yet the proprietor repeatedly runs it down on his blog. Because it is insignificant? OK, so why bother? I think it is relatively insignificant, and that makes me happy. I want a little neighborhood pub where I can kick my feet up on a table and kvetch among friends. It somewhat concerns me, in light of the context, that there are evidently apologists of some note in LDS circles who devote a lot of negative attention to it. I don't count that against the apologists individually. I think it reflects poorly on the maturity of the culture that it breeds such overreactions to insignificant and minor slights. Of course, my thumb is pointing back at me when I say this.

[Kishkumen]

Thank you for this insightful commentary. I am also concerned about the omission of Turner from Dan's reading list.

running down that innocent saintly lamb and spotless hero known as Brigham Young

You'd think Dan has never read the book That Noble Dream, by Peter Novick.

He also appears out of touch with his base. He needs to enjoy a lunch with master of Italian language, culture, and cuisine, Will Schryver. Shades isn't so far off the mark. Brigham Young absolutely was an autocrat and authoritarian -- an authoritarian badass that is, who knew how to treat a woman and and slap away the greedy hooves of weak men who would be suiters to his herd.

Like the prescient understanding the Nephite prophets had of Jesus Christ, Brigham Young read Jordan Peterson two centuries before Jordan Peterson was born.

Wonderful comments, Dean Robbers.

[Res Ipsa]

I think it is relatively insignificant, and that makes me happy. I want a little neighborhood pub where I can kick my feet up on a table and kvetch among friends.

I love this as a description of MD.

[drumdude]

It seems that I cannot countenance any criticism of Brother Brigham or any other leader of the Church of Jesus Christ, living or dead. And only hagiographic treatments of them should be read. Brigham Young may have been called “the Lion of the Lord” by some of his contemporaries, but I want to insist that he was a flawless and perfectly saintly lamb. Moreover, I don’t feel any obligation to be fair, or understanding, or nuanced in my view of Brigham Young, Church leaders, and the history of the Church as a whole. They were and are perfect. And anyone that I perceive to be criticizing or attacking the Church is, by definition, unjustified and wrong, and perhaps even mentally ill, and my response to such a person will always be robotic and predictable

[Doctor Scratch]

It seems that I cannot countenance any criticism of Brother Brigham or any other leader of the Church of Jesus Christ, living or dead. And only hagiographic treatments of them should be read. Brigham Young may have been called “the Lion of the Lord” by some of his contemporaries, but I want to insist that he was a flawless and perfectly saintly lamb. Moreover, I don’t feel any obligation to be fair, or understanding, or nuanced in my view of Brigham Young, Church leaders, and the history of the Church as a whole. They were and are perfect. And anyone that I perceive to be criticizing or attacking the Church is, by definition, unjustified and wrong, and perhaps even mentally ill, and my response to such a person will always be robotic and predictable

There is some exaggeration here, but it is essentially accurate. His defense is that he cited a couple of books that *do* describe the negative aspects of BY, but will we ever see him quoting passages that describe BY's bad behavior from these books? Would he actually do that on "SeN"? And is he citing these books in the interest of having a "balanced view," or only as a knee-jerk reaction to the criticisms?

And I see that he is cry-babying because of my remark that his new movie is an avowedly anti-Community of Christ production. He writes that the:

claim that I’ve expressly declared my intent to make Six Days in August an anti-Community of Christ film is a flat-out lie

Fair enough: he hasn't "expressly declared" that this is his intent. "Repeatedly implied" is probably the better description. Regardless, it's absolutely not a "flat-out lie." Pretty much 100% of the material he's posted about the film have all pointed to it being a fundamentally and avowedly anti-CoC production.

[drumdude]

There is some exaggeration here, but it is essentially accurate. His defense is that he cited a couple of books that *do* describe the negative aspects of BY, but will we ever see him quoting passages that describe BY's bad behavior from these books? Would he actually do that on "SeN"? And is he citing these books in the interest of having a "balanced view," or only as a knee-jerk reaction to the criticisms?

And I see that he is cry-babying because of my remark that his new movie is an avowedly anti-Community of Christ production. He writes that the:

claim that I’ve expressly declared my intent to make Six Days in August an anti-Community of Christ film is a flat-out lie

Fair enough: he hasn't "expressly declared" that this is his intent. "Repeatedly implied" is probably the better description. Regardless, it's absolutely not a "flat-out lie." Pretty much 100% of the material he's posted about the film have all pointed to it being a fundamentally and avowedly anti-CoC production.

Let's look at Daniel's arguments against what's been said about him here:

1) "too contemptible to merit response"
2) "I’ve explicitly said the contrary, and more than once"
3) "I contended that Brigham Young was a complex figure"
4) "I said Brigham Young may have been called 'the Lion of the Lord' by some of his contemporaries"

Do any of those address the substance of criticism towards DCP here? I'm asking seriously. Did Dan address anything with any substantive argument other than "I disagree"

Once you remove the 90% sarcastic filler from his blog entries, I think it's pretty easily shown he did not.