Love or Confusion?
“Kidnapping Charges Bring Unwanted Attention.” What a strange headline, but then this is a strange story. As recounted in the Deseret News article, a Utah couple appeared in court yesterday “accused of kidnapping [their] 21-year-old daughter” and “driving her to Colorado on the eve of her wedding.” The story notes that the couple “brought their daughter back [to Utah] the next day after she told them she wouldn’t marry her fiance. The engaged couple was married just days later in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Salt Lake Temple and are now expecting their first child.” Then this critical point: “In a previous interview, [the daughter] told the Deseret Morning News she and her husband have not talked with her parents since they brought her back.”
There are also stories in the SL Trib (“Couple, accused of ‘bride-napping’ their daughter, in court“) and an AP story at Yahoo News (“Couple in court in bride-napping case“). The SL Trib story clarifies the sequence of events: The bride “persuaded her parents to drive her back, promising she wouldn’t contact [the groom], but they arrived after the wedding was supposed to take place, according to police reports. The couple married three days later without [the bride's] parents attending.”
Maybe the Church could set up a program to avoid this sort of thing in the future by designating certain temples as “elopement” temples. Young engaged couples who think one set of parents may be tempted to try their hand at “bride-napping” or even “groom-napping” could run off to the designated elopement temple to avoid unfortunate (and unwanted) parental felonies. I think the Las Vegas temple would be a fitting choice.
Comment by Dave — October 27, 2006 @ 8:22 am
Not only has the daughter not spoken to her parents, but she is actively assisting and encouraging the prosecution of her parents for kidnapping. If convicted, her parents face up to 15 years in prison.
She and her new husband appeared on NBC’s Today show a few weeks ago, and she stated that she loved her parents, but was “glad” that her parents would be prosecuted for the alleged kidnapping.
Does anyone else find the daughter’s eagerness to put her parents behind bars for 15 years disturbing?
Comment by ECS — October 27, 2006 @ 8:28 am
I guess it would depend if there was any abuse going on, ECS. If they kidnapped her at gunpoint…well, there would be a good reason to prosecute. Imagine what they might try to pull on the grandkids. I really don’t know any of the details, so who knows?
Comment by J. Stapley — October 27, 2006 @ 8:49 am
I recall hearing the daughter say something about her parents’ needing help, and this prosecution seemed to be the only way to make that happen. I suspect that she doesn’t think there is a serious possibility that the parents could do 15 years up at the Point of the Mountain. (And there probably isn’t any real likelihood of that. I’d look for a plea to some misdemeanor, probation and counseling.)
Equally disturbing is her willingness to go public with the story, to the point of appearing on national TV. Shut up, already, Ms. Myers! Put your family’s dirty laundry in the washing machine, not on the Today show.
Comment by Mark B. — October 27, 2006 @ 8:51 am
J – I agree that use of a firearm would mitigate in favor of prosecution, but the parents did not use a gun to threaten their daughter (the article I linked to in my comment provides a few details about the alleged kidnapping).
Mark B. – while it’s doubtful that her parents will be given the maximum sentence if found guilty of kidnapping, that the daughter thinks the only way to mend family relations is by prosecuting her parents smacks of extreme delusion.
Comment by ECS — October 27, 2006 @ 9:07 am
ECS, Not only disturbing; but, I think shameful (particularly parading this around on national television)! I don’t excuse the parents ridiculous conduct; but, criminal prosecution for what clearly are family related emotional issues? These folks absolutely don’t belong as Mark B. points out at Point of the Mountain–home and former to folks the like of which include Gary Gilmore, Mark Hoffman, and more.
I suspect the vindictiveness of this daughter will one day come back to haunt her. How sad.
Dave, I’m sure you know Las Vegas allows folks to obtain marriage licenses 24/7–so I’m assuming the elopement sealing room will maintain similar hours–perhaps with a door bell for the early morning arrivals?
Comment by Guy Murray — October 27, 2006 @ 9:31 am
Well, in my opinion, the daughter’s immaturity and lack of good judgment by choosing to participate in the criminal prosecution of her parents was very clear during her unfortunate appearance on the Today Show. Although I certainly don’t condone her parents’ actions, I sympathize with the parents’ concern that their daughter was too immature for and was rushing into marriage. In any event, I hope that this case gets dismissed before trial.
Comment by ECS — October 27, 2006 @ 10:45 am
Alas, Guy, you’re a bit behind the news on the hours of the marriage license bureau in Las Vegas. As the press reported just two months ago (see “>here), the bureau shuts down at midnight every night, and doesn’t reopen until 8:00 a.m. They’ll just need to keep things open a few hours later than now, say an endowment session at 1:00 a.m., with the wedding to follow, for those folks who get their marriage license at 11:59.
Comment by Mark B. — October 27, 2006 @ 10:49 am
Well, I tried to use the link tool, but I must have failed. Try this.
Comment by Mark B. — October 27, 2006 @ 10:56 am
#2, ECS, if your parents kidnapped you the day before your wedding and you tried to get away, and they physically forced you back into the van and took off, you might be a little bitter. These guys were not lovingly trying to change her mind. I think they went a little crazy.
Guy, the fact that they are her parents do not excuse what they did. If anybody did that to anyone else, it would be a crime. She deserves to feel a little vindictive.
Obviously, there is huge dysfunction in this family, and this girl is not perfect, but her parents committed a crime in abducting her and forcing her to stay with them for three days. If she’s screwed up, they raised her.
No way should they get away with this. No way.
Comment by annegb — October 27, 2006 @ 11:10 am
And you know what else bugs me? How people commit crimes but don’t think they’re criminals.
Let’s have any of you guys forced into a van for three days by crazy, albeit loving individuals and see how you can not take it personally.
If these people had any shame at all, they would plead guilty, apologize to their daughter and fess up to their own lack of sense.
Comment by annegb — October 27, 2006 @ 11:15 am
I thought about kidnapping you, annegb, and holding you in a van for three days, but then I read The Ransom of Red Chief again, and decided not to. : )
Comment by Mark B. — October 27, 2006 @ 11:49 am
I’m afraid I don’t have a lot of patience for the parents in this. Please, someone explaint to me why a kidnapper shouldn’t be punished. If it were some other crime I have a feeling you wouldn’t be feeling like that.
I think that were the parents showing remorse or so forth and changing their ways then I could see not pressing charges. But frankly for parents to go to that extreme shows some serious mental and emotional issues. Probably the daughter is right that this is the only way to show her parents that they are messed up. Sometimes removing consequences for people engaged in control and disobedience is the only way for them to get out of their denial.
I can, however, agree that taking things to the press seems a bit odd. Perhaps she was getting flak and wanted her side of the story told? I don’t know, but in general I find going to the press distasteful. Especially when it’s little more than tabloid journalism.
Comment by Clark — October 27, 2006 @ 3:42 pm
I’m with annegb.
Sometimes the only way to move past something is to make sure the punishment gets doled out appropriately. Forgiveness and Repentance does not mean that there should never be consequences.
If the parents aren’t pleading guilty, than I think the daughter has ample reason to push for prosecution. If this had happened to me, I would be afraid my kids would disappear one day. And frankly, while I love my parents and my in-laws, my kids come first.
As for talking to the press – It depends on who approached whom and how it was sold. My guess is the press came to her and sold her a lot of empty rhetoric that she bought. Most of us would likely buy it as well.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — October 27, 2006 @ 5:21 pm
What if the parents knew/suspected/believed that their daughter was not worthy to attend the temple and would “desecrate” it? What if the parents thought they were saving their child from a fate worse than death: spiritual death and blasphemy?
This scenario makes sense to me…
Comment by Mandy — October 27, 2006 @ 6:13 pm
One of the interviews I saw it seemed clear that it wasn’t until AFTER she got home that she could really face it and call it kidnapping. And she said that they used physical force (but said she wasn’t going to give more details than that) and she eventually had to lie and persuade them she was going to dump her fiancee in order to get free.
This sounds like kidnapping to me.
She was taken against her will. She was physically restrained. She couldn’t contact her fiancee who was of course worried about her. She had to plead and lie for two days to get released.
I am glad she is cooperating and pressing charges. Crimes should not go unreported just because it is a family member. It happens too often that people don’t press charges in cases of rape, molestation, and physical abuse.
Comment by JKS — October 27, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
Have any of you who support the daughter ever attended a criminal trial or visited a jail? Spending even a month or two in jail with hardened criminals is not something you should wish on your parents (or yourself, because you can be certain all the family dirty laundry is going to be paraded around for all to see and read in the papers should this go to trial). Sure the parents were wrong for “kidnapping” their daughter, and arguably the parents should be punished. Notwithstanding, you all should watch the segment of the Today Show where the daughter answered brightly and firmly that she was quite willing and ready to send her parents to jail. This was one of the most disturbing displays of callousness that I have ever seen on television. And that’s saying something, because I used to watch every episode of the show “24″.
Comment by ECS — October 27, 2006 @ 6:33 pm
Mandy, hon, you scare me.
I don’t think this girl has the right to press charges—I mean, I don’t think it’s that kind of crime. I think the state is obligated to press charges and she said she would cooperate if they decided that. I don’t think it was her decision at all. I think she would have gone with whatever they decided to do, and they decided to prosecute the crime.
The idea that our relatives, ie our husbands, parents, are entitled to do things to us that perfect strangers could not, bothers me. That’s how men got away with spousal abuse for so long.
What they did is really appalling. Still, I sort of agree with Greta Van Susteren. In the grand scheme of things, where the state has to prosecute so many crimes, perhaps they could let this go, or go with some type of compassionate plea bargain.
I’m curious about the birth order here. If she’s their oldest, I fear for their other children. If she’s the youngest, or if they have other kids who are doing well, perhaps their intentions were pure. We sure worried about Sarah marrying Nick. Well, honestly, nobody could have been good enough for her. I loved all those guys, but I wasn’t all hep on her getting married. It’s worked out rather well, but.
What I’m saying, is a lot of parents probably think about doing what these people did, or at least objecting strenuously. I’m pretty sure they’re going to regret it big time down the road and not just because they’re going to be convicted felons and can no longer vote.
Comment by annegb — October 27, 2006 @ 6:33 pm
Mark B. very funny. Also, true. Bill always says if anybody took me, they’d bring me back. Which is usually something people say about their kids.
But you wouldn’t believe how glad they were to get rid of me after one night in the psyche unit.
ECS, our posts crossed.
This girls parents didn’t care much about her feelings, she doesn’t owe them anything here. Obviously, this isn’t a normal, warm loving family, for heavens sake. You are blaming the victim and the victim of a crime she certainly is. Like I said, if a stranger had done this to her, they’d be in jail already. Why should our family get to do this sort of thing?
Comment by annegb — October 27, 2006 @ 6:37 pm
annegb -her parents kidnapped her not to rape her or hold her for ransom. Her parents kidnapped her because they did not want her to get married. Granted, the parents should not have kidnapped their daughter. But the daughter’s appearance on the Today Show was of a lovely young woman enjoying her 15 minutes of fame who couldn’t wait to send her parents to jail. In my opinion, that’s worse than what her parents did to her.
Comment by ECS — October 27, 2006 @ 6:44 pm
I didn’t see the show, so I’ll take your word for it. I feel the same way about Cindy Sheehan, so I think I know what you’re getting at. That would bug me, also.
It also further reflects on the dysfunction of the total family.
I think the general view here in Utah is that the state will deal easily with these parents, but that a price must be paid. If it were put to a vote, I’d say let it go, they’ve all been embarrassed enough.
You’re right, they shouldn’t have done it, but we all do stupid things. Especially parents. No lie, if I had it to do over again, I’d tell Heavenly Father to keep the body, I’d stay in heaven.
Comment by annegb — October 27, 2006 @ 7:00 pm
Bizarre. Someone has comitted a crime, using physical force and intimindation, and most commentators seem willing to blame the vicitim. Yuck.
I didn’t see the TV show appearance, but was it live? edited? How did the hosts frame it? Since the media’s one real bias is for sensationalism, I’m not sure we can claim one TV appearance is enough to condem her and exonerate her parents.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — October 27, 2006 @ 9:39 pm
“her parents kidnapped her not to rape her or hold her for ransom. Her parents kidnapped her because they did not want her to get married.”
This is NOT an acceptable reason to kidnap someone. If she was under 18 it would be a different story–they could transport her to another state to miss her prom. But 20 year olds are adults and if they held her against her will, that is kidnapping. It doesn’t really matter what reason they had.
As for the daughter seemingly “enjoying” her fame, I think that she might be a product of the reality TV generation. I’m 35. But she grew up where regular people DO air the details of their lives on TV like it is no big deal.
Comment by JKS — October 27, 2006 @ 9:45 pm
Yeah, it’s easy to lose perspective when the media gets involved. Because no matter how I dislike Cindy Sheehan, I’m ready for this war to be over, for our boys to come home and stop being killed or injured.
And ECS, you–and I–might not feel good about this girl and her motives, but her parents committed a crime. If somebody did that to you, you’d be ready to press charges, wouldn’t you?
I’m having faith in the authorities on this one. Maybe we’ll be surprised and justice will be done.
Comment by annegb — October 27, 2006 @ 9:56 pm
Annegb, i was just saying that in the parents’ minds, it may have been justifiable. They may have felt the soon-to-be–wed, possibly already pregnant couple was “mocking God.” Me, I dpn’t believe that mumbo-jumbo.
Comment by Mandy — October 27, 2006 @ 10:56 pm
What if the parents knew/suspected/believed that their daughter was not worthy to attend the temple and would “desecrate†it? What if the parents thought they were saving their child from a fate worse than death: spiritual death and blasphemy?
This scenario makes sense to me…
Doesn’t justify it. They should have contacted their Bishop or Stake President or even the Temple President. Now I wouldn’t be surprised if they weren’t up for church action.
Comment by Clark Goble — October 28, 2006 @ 2:15 am
No, of course it doesn’t justify their actions, but since the parents are saying that (1) it isn’t the fiance/husband they don’t like and
(2) they didn’t want them to get married and
(3) they don’t really want to talk about,
this scenario is definitely one to be considered. There are people who believe strongly enough in the “everything and everyone MUST be pure” aspect to the temple that they would consider, if not do, what the Redds did in order to “preserve the sanctity” of the temple and prevent their loved ones from mocking God and inviting the devil to rule their lives thenceforth. Of course is sounds/is crazy, but the words of the temple ordinances are pretty stern and clear. I personally know people who would admire what the Redds did IF that’s the reason they did it.
There would also be an enormous shame factor to having an “unworthy” daughter slip through the bishop and SP interviews, and especially in a close-knit Mormon community like Blanding, it would be hard for the parents to go back to them and try to work it out. Maybe the parents thought by “taking her on a shopping trip’ and “talking sense into her” the daughter would change her mind, get married civilly and get sealed later.
I know it sounds crazy and I do NOT agree with the parents, but it sounds like a more plausible scenario than just calling the parents cuckoo and leaving it at that.
Comment by Mandy — October 28, 2006 @ 7:42 am
Wait, was she pregnant when they got married in the temple?
If Sarah had a recommend and was getting married in the temple and I knew she was sexually active, I’d have called the bishop. That would be a lot simpler than sticking her in the back of a van.
It does make them cuckoo. It makes the whole family look nuts.
But, Mandy, I’m really glad you don’t believe that crap. At least you won’t be cramming your child in the back of a van and booking to Denver for three days the day before the wedding.
It’s really hard to be a parent. It’s really hard to be a person in the world today. They screwed up. They’ll pay for it. Karma, I think, if nothing else.
Comment by annegb — October 28, 2006 @ 9:26 am
Let me be clear. I am not blaming the daughter for what her parents did. The daughter’s appearance on national television, however, stating that throwing her parents in jail is the only way to mend family relationships demonstrates a lack of maturity and judgment and a complete ignorance of the way the U.S. criminal justice system works. If the daughter is truly as concerned about her parents’ welfare and mending their relationship as she has claimed, try family therapy and mediation, not jail.
Comment by ECS — October 28, 2006 @ 9:56 am
I’ve seen nothing in any story that explains why the parents abducted their daughter. The natural inference is they didn’t want her to get married to that particular fellow or that they didn’t want her to get married, period. I haven’t seen any facts mentioned that would support the idea that where the couple were planning to get married (a temple) was an issue. I’m sure we’ll hear the parents’ side of the story soon enough. It’ll be quite a story, won’t it?
Comment by Dave — October 28, 2006 @ 11:51 am
annegb writes: “Let’s have any of you guys forced into a van for three days by crazy, albeit loving individuals and see how you can not take it personally.”
Ms. Myers was not forced into a van for three days.
JKS writes: “If she was under 18 it would be a different story–they could transport her to another state to miss her prom. But 20 year olds are adults and if they held her against her will, that is kidnapping.”
You’ve unknowingly put your finger on the reason some of us are not horrified by the parents’ conduct. The law draws fine lines, but my sense of outrage doesn’t.
Ivan Wolfe writes: “Bizarre. Someone has comitted a crime, using physical force and intimindation, and most commentators seem willing to blame the vicitim. Yuck.”
I say, let he who has never physically restrained an adult before cast the first stone. Ivan, are you qualified to go first?
Things that make you go Hmm: The brutal criminal Ms. Myers used to honor as her father has the exact same name as Bruce R. McConkie’s great-grandfather.
Comment by Chris Grant — October 28, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
BTW, I’d like to press kidnapping charges against every airline that’s taken me somewhere other than where they said they were taking me and kept me physically confined against my will for hours on end in a cramped metal container sitting on the tarmac.
Comment by Chris Grant — October 28, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
Chris -
I have never, ever used physical force to kidnap an adult. Therefore, yes, I do fell just fine in judging her parents. Your willingness to excuse them and blame the victim is nothing short of odd and disturbing.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — October 28, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
Ivan:
Try answering the question I actually asked. Have your ever physically restrained an adult? Your presumption that whatever unspecified physical restraint these evil senior citizens used constitutes kidnapping is what I consider odd and disturbing. Good thing you’re not on the jury!
BTW, which sentence in my posts leads you to conclude that I’m “[blaming] the victim”? Enquiring minds want to know.
Comment by Chris Grant — October 28, 2006 @ 2:22 pm
Lemuel Hardison Redd is a long-time Mormon name. One of the leaders of the Hole in the Rock expedition was Lemuel Hardison Redd Jr. So, since BRMcK’s middle name is Redd, it’s hardly surprising that one of his ancestors was Lemuel Hardison Redd.
Omoshiroi, keredo . . .
Comment by Mark B. — October 28, 2006 @ 3:04 pm
Chris:
I don’t see how whether I have actually physically restrained an adult means anything in this question – it’s irrelevant, since kidnapping is much different than say, holding an autistic 30 year old still so he doesn’t wander into the street. They aren’t differences of degree – it’s a difference of kind.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — October 28, 2006 @ 3:10 pm
Just to note, there’s no evidence they were unworthy. So let’s not leap to judgment. Further, as I understand it, there are family history here. Or at least that has been claimed in the media.
Comment by Clark Goble — October 28, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
Ivan Wolfe writes; “I don’t see how whether I have actually physically restrained an adult means anything in this question. – it’s irrelevant, since kidnapping is much different than say, holding an autistic 30 year old still so he doesn’t wander into the street.”
Your answer (a) repeats your presumption that Brother and Sister Redd are in fact guilty of kidnapping, and (b) suggests that your only uses of physical force worth mentioning have been laudatory ones. Is suggestion (b), in fact, true?
Clark Goble writes: “as I understand it, there are family history here“.
Oh, I think this goes much deeper than that. This incident is only the latest manifestation of a long and disturbing thread in Mormonism. Observe:
(1) In 1940, the Mormon-published Improvement Era printed a story called “Pinch Hitter” in which an innocent young woman is leaving the church building when “[a] strong arm suddenly reached her, almost carried her down the steps, led her into a street that didn’t lead toward home. ‘If I have to kidnap a girl in order to talk to her for five minutes, I’m the fellow that can do it!’” The author actually appears to endorse this use of physical force.
(2) In the April 1960 issue of Western Folklore, BYU Professor Thomas E. Cheney reported that it was a “Utah Courtship Custom” for “the groom [to be] kidnapped and taken blindfolded about five miles away into a secluded spot and left to find his way home.”
(3) Church President Spencer W. Kimball confessed to having participated in shivarees in his younger days. While he later expressed regret about his participation, there is no indication that he was ever brought to justice for his deeds.
(4) The 1970s television show “The Waltons” earned some of its highest ratings in the predominantly Mormon communities of Utah. Its thin veneer of wholesomeness camouflaged sinister plots like that of the episode that originally aired on January 30, 1975: “Wedding plans for a friend’s daughter go awry when the mountain custom of kidnapping the groom gets out of hand.”
(5) Mormon culture continues to be obsessed with the movie “The Princess Bride”, almost 20 years after its initial release. It’s repeatedly shown at dollar theaters along Utah’s Wasatch front and in Mormon family home evening groups. In this movie, the helpless Princess Buttercup is kidnapped by the Dread Pirate Roberts, and this is portrayed as a good thing. BYU’s Varsity Theater, which is famous for its heavy-handed editing of movies, cynically leaves this unsavory plot element uncut, much to the delight of brutish Mormon audiences.
Comment by Chris Grant — October 28, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
There may not be concrete evidence of “unworthiness”, but from the first reports of the incident the stories indicated the couple was already pregnant. It’s certainly possible that they became pregant immediately or that the baby will be born premature. On the other hand, this could be one reason the parents were against the marriage and not against the groom: they were probably trying to talk the daughter out of marrying in the temple, not out of marrying altogether. This could also explain the weird secrecy around it all…
Comment by Mandy — October 28, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
Chris (#38) – Make sure that you’re painting “Utah Mormonism” with your brush, not Mormonism. Plenty of us Mormons have never been to Blanding, thank the Lord we don’t live in Utah, and have never had to kidnap our daughters to prevent them from marrying.
(Wild speculation) Maybe the groom hadn’t signed the prenup and they were concerned.
Comment by queuno — October 28, 2006 @ 6:26 pm
I could play spot the logical fallacies with your post for a week and still not exhaust it in all its odd, Ad hominems, red herrings, non sequiters, equivocations and the like, but I won’t.
You can believe whatever you want. It’s all good.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — October 28, 2006 @ 7:20 pm
Yeah, Chris, you can have it.
BTW, did anybody notice the Cardinals won the world series? Which so chaps my hide, all those years they came so close and I was their biggest fan and oh, the let-downs. Now they win? When I’ve quit watching baseball?
Yup, threadjack.
Most exciting game: Cardinals vs. Royals, 16 innings. Yes, 16. I think the Cardinals manager and a couple of players got ejected.
Comment by annegb — October 28, 2006 @ 9:28 pm
(Raiders of the Lost Ark)
Comment by Jim Cobabe — October 29, 2006 @ 1:54 pm
I am not saying they were definitely worthy, but according to the news they married on August 8 2006 and on October 16 2006, Julianna said she was 6 weeks pregnant with their first child. This would mean that they were married for 10 weeks, at the time of this interview. Plenty of time to get pregnant ‘legally’…and perhaps they wanted to get pregnant right away to cement the marriage in her parents’ minds?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15290731/
Comment by KFolau — October 29, 2006 @ 6:22 pm
Ivan Wolfe wrote:
“I could play spot the logical fallacies with your post for a week and still not exhaust it in all its odd, Ad hominems, red herrings, non sequiters, equivocations and the like, but I won’t.”
Ah, I see you’ve mastered the art of paralipsis. Very nice.
annegb writes: “Yeah, Chris, you can have it.”
I can have . . . what? If this is your way of apologizing to the Redds for alleging that they kept their daughter locked in a van for 72 hours, might I suggest being a little bit more explicit?
queno writes: “Make sure that you’re painting “Utah Mormonism†with your brush, not Mormonism.
Spencer W. Kimball lived in Arizona at the time he participated in shivarees. But he was a Utah resident by the time his confession was made public, so when he put in the 15 years at the state pen that such behavior warrants, maybe Arizona would have consented to him doing the time at Point of the Mountain.
Comment by Chris Grant — October 30, 2006 @ 10:23 am
queno writes: “Plenty of us Mormons have never been to Blanding, thank the Lord we don’t live in Utah, and have never had to kidnap our daughters to prevent them from marrying.”
And never used physical restraint against an adult? Then, by all means, stone away!
Homer Simpson: “Haven’t you heard of ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone’?”
[thud]
Todd Flanders: “Got him, Dad!”
Comment by Chris Grant — October 30, 2006 @ 10:31 am
Ah, I see you’ve mastered the art of paralipsis. Very nice.
And again, a single statement that alone contains multiple logical fallacies! I see you’ve mastered the art of arguing from fallacies. Very nice.
Not that any of that proves that you are wrong. I must admit there is a chance you are right, even if your arguments are full of fallacies. But I see no reasone to engage in debate with someone who can’t even bother to avoid, at least, equviocating and “attacking the person”.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — October 30, 2006 @ 11:05 am
And it wasn’t technically paralipsis. I was honestly saying I don’t have the time to go through and spend a week and half identifying every fallacy in your posts. I could, but I don’t have the time. I briefly listed a few of the general fallacies immediately obvious, and had I world enough and time it would be rather fun to do so. But since I have a dissertation to write, I really can’t. So, no, it wasn’t really paralipsis, though I grant it shared some of its formal characteristics.
Comment by Ivan Wolfe — October 30, 2006 @ 11:15 am
Ivan:
Paralipsis is the art of bringing up issues while claiming that you’re not bringing up issues. That is exactly what you’ve done in discussing my alleged logical fallacies while simultaneously proclaiming your desire not to discuss them. Your repeated assertion of your unwillingness to debate me even as you continue to debate me is of the same flavor.
Comment by Chris Grant — October 30, 2006 @ 11:39 am
Ivan:
Post #49 was written before I saw your post #48. Is your dissertation also the reason why you don’t have time to back up your accusation that I was “[blaming] the victim”?
Comment by Chris Grant — October 30, 2006 @ 11:45 am
Mark B. writes:
“Lemuel Hardison Redd is a long-time Mormon name. One of the leaders of the Hole in the Rock expedition was Lemuel Hardison Redd Jr. So, since BRMcK’s middle name is Redd, it’s hardly surprising that one of his ancestors was Lemuel Hardison Redd.”
I only know of 4 Lemuel Hardison Redd’s: father, son, and grandson pioneers and then the alleged kidnapper. The one you mention was the son; Elder McConkie was descended from the father but not the son. (I’m descended from the father’s father, John Hardison Redd.)
I wasn’t expressing surprise that Elder McConkie’s great grandfather was named Lemuel Hardison Redd; I was expressing surprise that the alleged kidnapper was.
Comment by Chris Grant — October 30, 2006 @ 12:06 pm
Surprised that there’s another LHR around, or that he, with that pioneer heritage, could be accused of such a crime?
Comment by Mark B. — October 31, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
Surprised that there’s another LHR around; you can’t swing a dead cat in Utah without hitting someone with pioneer heritage. In fact, I don’t really get why the middle name persisted beyond John Hardison Redd, who got it as his mother’s maiden name.
Comment by Chris Grant — October 31, 2006 @ 4:36 pm
Not being a descendant of the Redd family, I have no opinion on the persistence of the Hardisons.
Comment by Mark B. — October 31, 2006 @ 4:59 pm