LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
No I do not, nor do I intend to. I have no time nor interest in reading, thinking about, or discussing the lies, misinterpretations, and nonsense of anti-Mormon propaganda. It is entirely inappropriate to this thread.

Another thread should be started by those who wish to waste their time on this false mentality. This thread is on actual LDS teachings, Scriptures and Doctrines, NOT fabrications.

Let's get down to specifics, concerning anti-Mormon propaganda.

For example, as far as I can recall, every source I've quoted or linked on this thread is either on lds.org, or a source accepted and quoted from by FAIR or FARMS such as the Purple account of Smith's treasure hunting, or a book written by an LDS member and sold in the church bookstores such as Joseph Smith and the Restoration, or an article on byu.edu, or in a church-friendly Salt Lake City newspaper, or is a completely unrelated source such as an 1820s health guide written by someone who probably never even heard of Joseph Smith. There may have been a few others like Wikipedia, but let's take those categories as examples.

Which of those, if any, do you consider to be anti-Mormon propaganda?
 
Yes, she did selectively copy the text and rearrange some of it. Still, I do not think that qualifies as "summarizing", which is what she claimed, and it challenges the meaning of "condensed", which she also claimed.

I agree, and strictly speaking there should be ellipses to indicate the missing parts, if we're really going to get down and dirty about insisting on the best citations possible.
 
... what happened with the Mormons in Missouri and Illinois in the 1830's and 40's is the single worst case of religious persecution in US History. Granted, the Mormon Leadership did a lot of very stupid things,but that does not excuse the mob actions, which bear a scary resembelence to the Pogroms agains the Jews in Russia a few years later.

And, of course, a few years later this caused massive paranoia among the Mormons in Utah, which lead to incidents like The Mountains Meadows Massacre. IMHO although the local LDS officials were very guilty of being involved in it, Brigham Young was not, Young was way to smart then to do something like that.
No event in history can fully be known, but Massacre at Mountain Meadows by Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley and Glen M. Leonard, is an attempt to present the true picture, and as Walker says: " we left no stone unturned". This was a personal project by the authors, and although Church employees, and given full access to all relevant materials held by the Church, they retained full editorial control and have drawn their own conclusions from the exhaustive body of historical material they assembled.

The early and mid 1850s was the time of the Utah War, when people expected the US Army to enter Utah and either kill the LDS or force them from their homes. It was a time of great anxiety, tension, and attendant rumours among the general populace. We all know from movies of the violence and lawlessness of the American frontiers at this time. LDS members had suffered greatly from this unruly violence, and also from vicious and horrific persecution from those opposed to their religion.

After having been driven so many times from their homes and possessions, violated as they had been by fiends from hell, and now having to endure the unbelievable hardships of relocating to the harsh, freezing isolated wilderness of Mountain Meadow...it was understandable that these pioneer settlers would no longer "turn the other cheek" when the news came to them of this group, who were boasting of the atrocities they intended to commit on the "Mormons" and of their participation in the violence against LDS in both Missouri and Illinois, and that they had participated in the killing of Parley P. Pratt in Arkansas, poisoned a spring, and were threatened to destroy LDS settlements.

The message conveying the will and intent of Brigham Young not to interfere with the immigrants and instructing the Saints to allow the group safe passage did not arrive in time. The isolation, incomplete news of the approaching US Army, and fear of non-Mormons, contributed to paranoia on the part of the Mountain Meadows community. The responsibility for the massacre lies with Southern Paiute Indians and local leaders of settlers in the regions and those acting under their direction. Yes the Indians. who were friends of the LDS, were involved, their precious water and life line had been poisoned by those on which they took vengeance.

I have visited this area many times, and found it bitterly cold, inhospitable, and remote even today, and can imagine the despair of these settlers in those times, who after having endured so much to escape their persecutors now found they had followed them even there.
 
Alas, while the score is probably fair, the tool is comparing text against what can be found on the web. This being a public section of the forums, just about every post will get a 0% unique score within a few hours of posting.
Edited because I proved you correct. :o I hate it when that happens.
 
Last edited:
For what it's worth, though the words are taken from Talmage, she apparently made an original choice of what to include and what to leave out.

For example, see if you can find "twinkling of an eye. Among the earliest revelations" as a phrase elsewhere on the web. (Google it in quotes.) That's the end of one sentence from Talmage combined with the beginning of another sentence from Talmage. Only Janadele seems to have left out the middle portion and run them together in that combination.

By comparison, "then die in peace or be changed to immortality in the twinkling of an eye" can be found all over the web as Talmage's work, because she omitted nothing in the midst of that phrase.

Yes, she did selectively copy the text and rearrange some of it. Still, I do not think that qualifies as "summarizing", which is what she claimed, and it challenges the meaning of "condensed", which she also claimed.
I think that concludes the matter for me. I'll not say anymore except to say that she has some wiggle room.
 
Last edited:
No I do not, nor do I intend to. I have no time nor interest in reading, thinking about, or discussing the lies, misinterpretations, and nonsense of anti-Mormon propaganda. It is entirely inappropriate to this thread.

Another thread should be started by those who wish to waste their time on this false mentality. This thread is on actual LDS teachings, Scriptures and Doctrines, NOT fabrications.

And in your definition of the above lies the problem. Can you tell us truthfully if there is anything anyone can ever say, other than the stated Mormon policy you quote, which you might consider worthy of discussion? All I've seen is contradiction without any discussion. You have defined your way out of all real argument. It might be more economical, and surely less painful to those who appreciate competent writing, to read your posts than to read, say, the Mormon literature, but it is no more informative.
 
No I do not, nor do I intend to. I have no time nor interest in reading, thinking about, or discussing the lies, misinterpretations, and nonsense of anti-Mormon propaganda. It is entirely inappropriate to this thread.

Another thread should be started by those who wish to waste their time on this false mentality. This thread is on actual LDS teachings, Scriptures and Doctrines, NOT fabrications.

Thus proving my point about your beliefs.
 
And in your definition of the above lies the problem. Can you tell us truthfully if there is anything anyone can ever say, other than the stated Mormon policy you quote, which you might consider worthy of discussion? All I've seen is contradiction without any discussion. You have defined your way out of all real argument. It might be more economical, and surely less painful to those who appreciate competent writing, to read your posts than to read, say, the Mormon literature, but it is no more informative.
Argument clinic.

Monty Python said:
Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says.

 
Warning: The following is speculation and/or my fevered imagination and false memory.

As I recall the Mormon church councils missionaries to avoid places where the discussion is likely to be contentious. My speculation is that if Janadele were to consult her bishop he would kindly council her to avoid coming here.

Perhaps Janadele should turn herself in for her crime.
 
(snip)

The message conveying the will and intent of Brigham Young not to interfere with the immigrants and instructing the Saints to allow the group safe passage did not arrive in time. The isolation, incomplete news of the approaching US Army, and fear of non-Mormons, contributed to paranoia on the part of the Mountain Meadows community. The responsibility for the massacre lies with Southern Paiute Indians and local leaders of settlers in the regions and those acting under their direction. Yes the Indians. who were friends of the LDS, were involved, their precious water and life line had been poisoned by those on which they took vengeance.

(snip)

So you don't believe the LDS officials were responsible in any way for what happened?

Just out of sheer curiosity...how many of the local Indians were descended from Hebrews? And how many chose to be baptised Mormon?
 
A reminder that the topic of this thread is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, its teachings Scriptures and Doctrines. This does not include anti-Mormon propaganda.

Since skyrider44 seems unwilling to address the question, I'll ask you.

Do you think that there is a vast anti-Mormon conspiracy involving virtually everyone working across multiple scientific disciplines to hide the archaeological and biological evidence of the civilizations of the Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites?
 
Hmmm.... Something didn't seem quite right. So I started looking it up. I didn't finish, and I'm not going to, but here are my findings. I quoted Janadele, then beneath it put the original wording and put a link in to the actual site where the wording was found. It was a fun puzzle, but the end result is very disappointing. If this thread is about LDS doctrine and teachings, I assure you that plagiarism is not part of the teachings. The only reason I realized that it wasn't her own wording was it looked too much like a book review. Mountain Meadows just happens to be a subject that I'm interested in, and I was at a couple of those sites a day or two ago. Anyway, here are my findings.

No event in history can fully be known, but Massacre at Mountain Meadows by Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley and Glen M. Leonard, is an attempt to present the true picture,

"Although no event in history can fully be known, the work of these three authors has enabled us to know more than we ever have known about this unspeakable episode."

and as Walker says: " we left no stone unturned".

“I think readers should be assured that we left no stone unturned in the writing of this book, Walker said."

This was a personal project by the authors, and although Church employees, and given full access to all relevant materials held by the Church, they retained full editorial control and have drawn their own conclusions from the exhaustive body of historical material they assembled.

""Although they are Church employees, the authors have retained full editorial control and have drawn their own conclusions from the exhaustive body of historical material they assembled. They have been given full access to all relevant materials held by the Church."

The early and mid 1850s was the time of the Utah War,when people expected the US Army to enter Utah and either kill the LDS or force them from their homes. It was a time of great anxiety, tension, and attendant rumours among the general populace.

"The feeling among residents was generally very tense. The early and mid 1850s were the time of the Utah War, when people expected the US Army to enter Utah and either kill the Mormons or force them from their homes. It was a time of great anxiety, tension, and attendant rumors among the general populace."

...it was understandable that these pioneer settlers would no longer "turn the other cheek" when the news came to them of this group, who were boasting of the atrocities they intended to commit on the "Mormons" and of their participation in the violence against LDS in both Missouri and Illinois, and that they had participated in the killing of Parley P. Pratt in Arkansas, poisoned a spring, and were threatened to destroy LDS settlements.

"Commencing at this point and through settlements to the south, there were complaints that the emigrants boasted of participating in the violence against Mormons in both Missouri and Illinois, that they participated in the killing of Parley P. Pratt in Arkansas, poisoned a spring, and that they threatened to destroy one of the Mormon settlements."

The message conveying the will and intent of Brigham Young not to interfere with the immigrants and instructing the Saints to allow the group safe passage did not arrive in time.

"the message conveying the will and intent of Brigham Young not to interfere with the immigrants arrived too late"
 
Hmmm.... Something didn't seem quite right. So I started looking it up. I didn't finish, and I'm not going to, but here are my findings. I quoted Janadele, then beneath it put the original wording and put a link in to the actual site where the wording was found. It was a fun puzzle, but the end result is very disappointing.

I came to a similar result much earlier in the thread. Jandele quoted some scripture in response to a question, but when she was challenged to not just recite party-line answers, she vehemently denied the research and development of the response was anything but her own effort.

As it turns out, her response had some typographic anomalies. Had she done what she said--researched her own response--her copy/paste of scripture would have been different. Instead, it matched the text at a multitude of stock Mormon dogma websites; the match was exact, right down to the typographic anomalies.

Clearly, Janadele was just repeating rehearsed lines without any intellectual effort of her own.

If this thread is about LDS doctrine and teachings, I assure you that plagiarism is not part of the teachings.

Of course not, and I don't think any rational person reading this thread thinks Janadele is the epitome of Mormonism, either.
 
Last post on this page, same mess from over three years ago. Posted by Janadele.

ETA: Also here from last August.

The same post is being pasted for at least three years. What gives?
 
Last edited:
As I recall the Mormon church councils missionaries to avoid places where the discussion is likely to be contentious. My speculation is that if Janadele were to consult her bishop he would kindly council her to avoid coming here.


If she followed his advice, it wouldn't be much of a loss here, from the LDS POV. She has done nothing but parroted from other sources and proven that she apparently is incapable of independent thought.

Hardly a convincing argument if her aim is to convince anyone that the LDS BS she has been pushing is true.

As my nick implies, I work in advertising. One of the first rules in that field is that you need to know how to talk to your target audience. Janadele, you have failed miserably in that regard at the JREF forums.
 
User Belgarath seems to have put his finger on it in the SGU Forums.
That thread was closed for:

After much discussion, the mods have unanimously decided to put this thread out of its misery. The continual bickering, lack of critical engagement, and inability to find a common ground on which to base a productive discussion meant that this thread was not only not contributing to the rational, intellectual discussion this forum seeks to foster, but was instead detracting from it.
Clearly there is no discussion here. Janadelle will not engage meaningfully.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom