Hugh Nibley- Child Abuse?

[Pahoran]

I gave my reference, the Mark Hoffman investigation…

That’s not a reference; it’s a wave of the hand.

“Call for references” means just that: cite a document that supports your accusation, please.

Or else, please withdraw it.

as to your question, the police investigators are the ones who made the claims…now, I suppose they MUST be lying because they expose the LDS Church, right?

Call for references, please; which police investigators? What documents? Where can I read what they actually said?

(Eliza10: I hope you are enjoying the Christian niceness by which SirThomasMore attempts to overwhelm me with a shotgun blast of vague accusations against “the Mormons” as a monolithic entity.)

Yes…that is why I know you did…your denial is cute.

What you “know” is this:

I’m comparing the knee-jerk eagerness some people have to automatically believe accusations of child abuse with the knee-jerk eagerness some people used to have to automatically believe accusations of witchcraft.

Either you are intentionally trying to misrepresent my position, or you don’t understand it.

Which is it?

I do not need to be arrogant to read what you write

But you do to presume to tell me(!) what my(!) position is.

Nope. Recovered memories does not mean lying. You accused her. Back it up. Prove it.

Exactly. Recovered memories does not mean lying. That’s my point. The presumption of innocence in her favour is found in the view that her claims are based upon false recovered memories.

And the fact remains that the original subject of my statement to that effect – that she had no rational, good-faith basis to claim that her life was in danger from ecclesiastical retribution – is something you have preferred not to pursue.

Very wise.

Cool…another LDS know he has lost so he starts the attacks. Actually, correcting your errors is enjoyable.

I haven’t “lost” anything.

Tell us again, SirThomasMore: if Hugh Nibley were alive today, what case would he have to answer? Relying upon the evidence of Martha’s book, how confident could you be of getting a conviction?

Or even of bringing anything to trial?

Wrong. YOU made the bold claims. Yet you keep dodging when asked to prove them. Figures

(Eliza10: I hope you are enjoying the Christian niceness with which SirThomasMore accuses me of dishonesty.)

The fact is that I have substantiated both of my “bold claims.” Here they are again:

1. *]Contrary to her claims, Martha was never in danger of death at the hands of Church authorities. You know that as well as I do.
   *]Contrary to her claims, there is not a shred of evidence that articles about Sonia Johnson, or any other anti-Mormon material, were ever excised from periodicals in the Harold B. Lee Library at Brigham Young University. Nor were any other anti-Mormon materials. And furthermore, you know that her position on this is insupportably weak, which is why you keep reverting to variations of “I wouldn’t put it past them,” which is the gossip’s creed.
   

   Nope. Another fact.

   The fact being that it was an irrelevant cheap shot.
   
   Joseph Smith’s credibility is utterly off-topic and irrelevant to this discussion; but you drag it in because you think it makes me look foolish. To you and all others who simply despise believing Latter-day Saints for being Mormons, I suppose it does.
   

   Not true. You made an affirmative defense. You can;t prove it, so you try to shift the burden of proof. You lose. Again.

   You know, you almost had me there. As you know, an “affirmative defense” doesn’t have to be proven “beyond reasonable doubt” but only “on the balance of probabilities.” IOW, it requires a “resonable person” standard.
   
   And I’ve met that standard. I win.
   
   Martha’s accusation against her father cannot be believed by any reasonable person, based upon the fact of her sleeping arrangements.
   
   If you disagree, please explain why she neglected to mention those sleeping arrangements in her book?
   

   cool…another attack. Means I hit the target. Thank you.

   Actually, you were the one who attacked when you accused me of lying.
   
   Eliza10 thinks that’s nice.
   
   Regards,
   Pahoran

 

[SirThomasMore]

That’s not a reference; it’s a wave of the hand.

"

Call for references" means just that: cite a document that supports your accusation, please.

 

[Pahoran]

lol…knock yourself out. Yes, I am asserting criminal actions. Yes, authorities were involved. I actually worked for the chief judge. I chose not to press charges because if the Mormons were willing to try to take my children, where would they stop. The judge and the DA tried to convince me to press charges.

So, when you say that “the Mormons,” whoever “the Mormons” were, tried to “kidnap” your children, nevertheless your accusation was not backed up by any official investigation.

So it remains another unsubstantiated accusation.

And the lack of substantiation comes down to an incredibly weak excuse. “If the Mormons were willing to try to take my children, where would they stop.”

They’d stop in jail, if there was ANY truth to your accusation.

Frankly, I think there’s as much truth in your claim that the Church tried to kidnap your children as there is in the claim that the Jews ate the child of La Guardia.

And I also think that the two claims are motivated by the same degree of Christian charity and love of truth.

You are ignoring the facts. You ignore what many people have claimed who have left the church. That is too bad.

Perhaps you assume that I know nothing about people leaving the Church.

You assume wrongly.

I have known many people who have left. Some of them are in my own family. Some have returned to the Church.

Why would they do that, if it meant putting themselves at risk of danger again?

Eliza10 thinks it’s terribly mean of me to say this, but I’m going to say it anyway: the accusation that the Church of Jesus Christ enacts violent retribution against people who leave is a lie.

Furthermore, it is an evil and disgusting lie.

And the only reason you can get away with it is because you are operating in a forum where most people seem willing, if not downright eager, to believe the worst about the Church.

Perhaps Eliza10 thinks it’s nicer to tell such lies than to point out what they are.

wow. You know, when you blindly assume every claim is a lie because it is from an ex-Mormon, you lose ALL credibility

Except that I don’t “blindly assume” any such thing. I know for a FACT that certain popular canards are what they are.

I also know where they originate from.

And I find it interesting that ex-Mo’s who participate in fora where knowledgeable Latter-day Saints regularly participate tend to avoid these egregious lies.

Perhaps it’s stomach-turning of me to mention that, too.

Actually, you worship a very different god

In your opinion. That is a theological question, and of course a red herring for this discussion.

But in fact, I worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as revealed in the Bible.

If you and I worship different deities, then maybe that’s because you worship the God of Middle Platonism.

(note the correct capitalization when referring to the LDS god)

As atheists regularly do.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[Eliza10]

Quote: “Joseph Smith’s credibility is…”
non-existant. :sad_yes:

Couldn’t be truer. That sure stands out to me, having just completed Fawn Brodie’s throrough historical account, with its extensive footnotes of amazing historical documents. Yes, an in-credible figure. Never heard of such an interesting, affeable, lying, lusting, cheating, scheming character. :nope:
Joseph Smith’s credibility is …

 

[Pahoran]

Pahoran;6939332:

That’s not a reference; it’s a wave of the hand.

I cited a document…the Hoffman Investigation. I am sorry if you missed that.

I’m aware of no document called “the Hoffman Investigation.” Where is it? By whom is it published?

I am aware of several books on the subject. None of them demonstrates that the Church falsified any documents. There was a mix-up about the location of one document, and a subsequent discovery of other uncatalogued documents in the Church archives; but none of the idiotic conspiracy theories that you have spouted.

Read the investigation. Or read any of the books on the topic. I will point you in the right direction, but I will not read for you

You are the accuser (Greek, diabolos.) You get to substantiate your accusations, or they collapse for lack of support.

I spoke the truth. Sorry if that confounded you.

You spoke falsely; apparently on purpose.

That was an untrue statement. I said she is not the first to claim bad things happen when one leaves the LDS Church. Your denial is so darned cute!

You are misrepresenting the discussion. Here is what I wrote:

She repeatedly insists that her life will be in mortal danger from “someone” or other in the Church.

She’s either making that up, or she is delusional.

That, sir, is the source of my statement that drew your faux outrage. Whatever you said about it did not succeed in changing the subject.

And yes, I know that others have told similar falsehoods. Like you, and Ed Decker.

Snip several red herrings.

I never accused you of lying. I simply said I doubted a statement you made. There is no need to falsely accuse me of something

I said that I had experience, both of actual child abuse and false accusations thereof. Since I was asserting something entirely within my own experience, your expression of “doubt” was nothing more or less than an accusation that I was lying.

As you no doubt intended it to be.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[SirThomasMore]

So, when you say that “the Mormons,” whoever “the Mormons” were, tried to “kidnap” your children, nevertheless your accusation was not backed up by any official investigation.

That is because you do not read what I type. I have never said the Church did it…(though there are historical incidents of it in the past…) I said MORMONS did it. I refuse to believe that the LDS Church sanctioned it.

And the only reason you can get away with it is because you are operating in a forum where most people seem willing, if not downright eager, to believe the worst about the Church.

I get away with the truth everywhere

QUOTE]Except that I don’t “blindly assume” any such thing. I know for a FACT that certain popular canards are what they are.

I also know where they originate from.

apparently not

And I find it interesting that ex-Mo’s who participate in fora where knowledgeable Latter-day Saints regularly participate tend to avoid these egregious lies.

luckily for me, I tell the truth. Though your blatant denials are cute. Your attitude is such that your denials now do not mean anything.

In your opinion. That is a theological question, and of course a red herring for this discussion.

But in fact, I worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as revealed in the Bible.

If you and I worship different deities, then maybe that’s because you worship the God of Middle Platonism.

No, you worship a false god who was once a sinful man. Ugh

As atheists regularly do.

more name calling? lol

 

[Pahoran]

Quote: “Joseph Smith’s credibility is…”
non-existant. :sad_yes:

Couldn’t be truer. That sure stands out to me, having just completed Fawn Brodie’s throrough historical account, with its extensive footnotes of amazing historical documents. Yes, an in-credible figure. Never heard of such an interesting, affeable, lying, lusting, cheating, scheming character. :nope:

That’s because no such person ever actually existed. Brodie’s Joseph, as Hugh Nibley so tellingly pointed out more than sixty years ago, is simply not capable of achieving what the real Joseph actually did.

Interestingly, just like Martha, Brodie apparently wanted to write a novel.

Joseph Smith’s credibility is …

Far higher than Brodie’s.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[SirThomasMore]

I’m aware of no document called “the Hoffman Investigation.” Where is it? By whom is it published?

 

[Pahoran]

Tom, you are going to have to sort out how you do quotes. I lost two thirds of your post because of the way you quoted it.

I’m sorry that you had a horrible experience 21 years ago. I had a worse experience 25 years ago.

But I’m pleased to see you admit that the Church was not at fault.

That is because you do not read what I type. I have never said the Church did it…(though there are historical incidents of it in the past…)

No. There were not.

I said MORMONS did it. I refuse to believe that the LDS Church sanctioned it.

Good. Then we are agreed.

Neither you nor Martha have ever, at any time, ever, been in danger of violent retribution at the hands of the Church leadership.

Nor have either you, or Martha, ever had any reason to believe that you were.

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[SalesianSDB]

Mr. Nibley’s Mormonism shouldn’t play into this.

Child abuse is a human problem, not a Mormon problem, not a Catholic problem, but a human problem. If some how the fact he is LDS matters here, how about the Catholic priests who have abused children (both allegedly like Nibley and proven)? It isn’t a reason to dismiss the entire religion or the person because of his faith.

If he did abuse her, I fel for her and he and her need our prayers. But the truth is tht we will never know for sure.

The truth is, for every priest who abused a child there’s at LEAST three other Don Boscos or John Paul II’s. And likewise, for every Hugh Nibley there’s at least three Gordon B. Hinckly’s.

 

[TikiTokiguy]

Quote: “Joseph Smith’s credibility is…”
non-existant. :sad_yes:

Couldn’t be truer. That sure stands out to me, having just completed Fawn Brodie’s throrough historical account, with its extensive footnotes of amazing historical documents. Yes, an in-credible figure. Never heard of such an interesting, affeable, lying, lusting, cheating, scheming character. :nope:
Joseph Smith’s credibility is …

I read that book about a month or so ago. I was hoping there would be some good things in it about Joseph Smith. I was hoping at least some of those marriages were really done to follow Gods will. Nope. It really breaks my heart. Smith was no prophet, he was pure man like me or you. What’s more, he’s worse. Hopefully if given the chance to scare women into marrying me, I would never do that. Somehow I knew it all to be false but hoped it wasn’t, and went ahead and joined the LDS church. Now out of depression, I read the book and it was wonderfully written and with therapy, helping me break away from the LDS church. It does break my heart. It also makes me sad so many followers choose to follow him. No wonder so many ex-LDS become atheists. Maybe they are so sad about so many people being fooled, they think God does not exist, can’t exist, because if He did exist He would not let so many people be fooled. And how can I tell the one man in the ward that calls me, always encouraging me to come back to the ward? How can I tell him I’ve become an enemy of the church? How can I tell him to find peace with myself I must be myself, and to forgive my dad I feel I must join his church - the Catholic church.

In the Elders Quorum meeting one time the teacher said he thinks if the church wanted all the men to go to Salt Lake and protect the church, most of us would probably go. He said most, not all. I asked myself - would I go to Salt Lake and protect the church? Would I die for the church? Then, I’m not sure. But now, no. I would not die for the church. But would I fight for and die for the Catholic church? Let me put it this way - dying for the LDS church would be a bad death for me. Dying for the Catholic church would be an honorable and worthy way to die. I can’t stand with the LDS church anymore. I stand with the
Catholic church because those people are like me, they are everyday people. I’ll stand with the Unitarian Universalists because they seem to accept all people and as I heard - all people are special and have dignity.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Tom, you are going to have to sort out how you do quotes. I lost two thirds of your post because of the way you quoted it.

 

[Pahoran]

wrong. Read “The Mormon Murders” and a plethora of other books. The investigators speak for themselves. Several investigators were LDS and left Church when they caught Hinkley lying.

Really? Who?

Name one, please.

The investigators had little to do with President Hinckley, and he was not caught lying about anything. A few people jumped to the erroneous conclusion that he had lied about something because Hofmann loved to make exaggerated claims of regular contact with him. In fact, he saw President Hinckley far less often than he claimed, and did not have his home phone number.

Pause.

Deep breath.

This is getting way off topic. Are you so completely incapable of convicting Hugh Nibley of anything at all that you have to keep dragging in all this extraneous and irrelevant material?

Given that the librarians at the Harold B. Lee Library in 1988 had nothing whatever to do with any documents held by the Church Historical Department in 1985-6, you do realise that this is all nothing more than smearing by association, don’t you?

Regards,
Pahoran

 

[SirThomasMore]

Really? Who?

Name one, please.

The investigators had little to do with President Hinckley, and he was not caught lying about anything. A few people jumped to the erroneous conclusion that he had lied about something because Hofmann loved to make exaggerated claims of regular contact with him. In fact, he saw President Hinckley far less often than he claimed, and did not have his home phone number.

Pause.

Deep breath.

This is getting way off topic. Are you so completely incapable of convicting Hugh Nibley of anything at all that you have to keep dragging in all this extraneous and irrelevant material?

Given that the librarians at the Harold B. Lee Library in 1988 had nothing whatever to do with any documents held by the Church Historical Department in 1985-6, you do realise that this is all nothing more than smearing by association, don’t you?

Regards,
Pahoran

sigh…deny it all you want. everything I said is true

 

[Eliza10]

That’s because no such person ever actually existed. Brodie’s Joseph, as Hugh Nibley so tellingly pointed out more than sixty years ago, is simply not capable of achieving what the real Joseph actually did.

Interestingly, just like Martha, Brodie apparently wanted to write a novel…

It doesn’t seem like you read it, or the Amazon reviews - which convinced me to buy it after it was reccommended here. Then I could hardly put it down. The content is PACKED with facts; its nothing like a novel. And on the footnoted or appendixed historical documents that make up nearly half the book, one can EASILY say Smith has no credibility. But go ahead and start a thread on Brodie’s book if you want. Or start a thread on how Smith is credible.

…I’m sorry that you had a horrible experience 21 years ago. I had a worse experience 25 years ago…

Pardon me, but how do you know? SirThomas really didn’t tell us much about his experience.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Departed from topic, declining charity, and closed.