Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I never said anyone needs to. And while you are free to hold the opinion that no one would, I am free to observe otherwise. Either way, I don't understand your objection.
I don't get mad. But if I did, I just detailed why, and it is a legitimate reason.
It matters to me.
That is fine. I have no objection to you believing what you believe, nor to your choosing not to get mad when someone states what you believe. I still feel that you failed to understand why I, or other LDS, may object when others purport to share what we believe. I was speaking generally; you are being specific. And I think it's leading you to miss my point.
I do. Why do you presume that I don't?
Maybe they found misinformation and thought they'd found good information. Impossible?
Maybe the person did a lousy job of explaining.
Actually, the bottom line is thisI determine what I believe, not you. And I determine what the thing I believe means, not you. If you take it upon yourself to say what I believe, or explain what it means, and you do so accurately, I will have no objection. But I reserve the right to object to any presumption of my belief, just as you do. Right?
Maybe that's what it means to you, but not to me. To me, it means that the person doing the investigation did his best to identify the credible accounts, regardless of whether or not those accounts favored any bias going in (there is usually bias going in), and presented those credible accounts, along with his conclusion formed on the basis of those accounts (as opposed to on the basis of his bias).
Your comment calls for an addition to my first statement. I said that the most objective histories didn't support the "dupe" claim, which is true. But it is also true that none of the histories didnot even those less objective ones. At least that I can recall. I may go back and look, just to be sure, but I would like to think that I'd remember a claim like that; it would stand out easily.
Research.
Where did the other details come from that you claimed (the donning of Joseph's uniform and the explicit charge of "faking the people" into believing he had been transfigured...)? And how could JS III have claimed those other things if he hadn't witnessed them? And did B.Y. borrow the horse or steal it? And did he feed/water it or not? What you would have had us all believe was some kind of iron-clad account of what happened sounds less and less credible the more you disclose. Just sayin'.
History is history (at least when it is, in fact, history). People will "hear" in history what they want to hear. So we can't obsess too much over what we can't control.
I respect that you have concluded that some people were duped. I am interested in the sources of these details, and why they have not been included in any history I've read, whether the history was objective or not, favorable or damning (to B.Y.).
That is all fine and understood, but you still haven't understood what I said. I was talking about objections to someone's presumption of one's beliefs. For example, If I say that I believe that the sky is green because its measurable RGB value places it within the green section of the RGB gamut (while not being "green" like a blade of grass), I will object if someone else (who is not me!) says something like, "Oh that TFT, he believes that the sky is green. Can you believe that nonsense?" Do you see the difference? My belief is qualified by context, but the presumption of my belief that was shared by someone else wasn't. It is a caricature only. And what's worse, the caricature was then leveraged to make fun of either me or my belief, or both. That is what I'm talking about when I speak of me (or other LDS) objecting to what only looks like our belief, even thoughin the simplest of terms aloneit can be said to be our belief.
I have not been talking about what you label "LDS history." I have been talking about the works of historians. Degree-toting and not. LDS and otherwise. Favorable and not. There is no justification for you laughing at my statement. And I am still interested in your sources.
I will try to dig up the sources. It has been 10 years since I left the church, and don't own as many resources as I used to.
