Cup of Jane is wrong about Joan of Arc

I have many 'sheros' that have stood the test of time.  Some are family members, some are from the great pool of humanity.

One of mine is Joan of Arc who is quoted as saying, "I am not afraid, I was born to do this."

I've read The Girl in White Armor by Albert Bigelow Paine (published 1929)

I own this book

I've also read or heard talks given by the general authorities in the LDS church, including,

https://www.lds.org/friend/2007/05/dont-be-afraid-to-be-different?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/new-era/2010/01/we-want-the-best-for-you?lang=eng

 and read The Spirit of Liberty by Suzanne Freeman in which Joan was mentioned. 

As a little girl, I watched the movie based on Joan starring Ingrid Bergman.  

More recently, I watched the BYUtv docudrama about Joan.  Here is a link to the YouTube preview:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbHnFhIftYM

Not an in-depth research of her life to be sure, but enough that when HistoryBites shared A Cup of Jane's list about Joan on FB, I was offended by the disrespect shown a teenage girl who stood at the head of battles, praying her way to victory after victory.

This is the beginning of the article (Italics are mine):  

"Six hundred years ago, a teenage girl with courage in her heart—and possibly voices in her head—rose from obscurity to champion Charles VII of France and lead the French army to important victories during the Hundred Years’ War. Much of what we know about Joan of Arc, who burned at the stake in 1431, is based on apocryphal accounts and long-held misconceptions. Below, explore seven widely accepted facts about the Maid of Orleans that might come as a surprise."

Dust off your critical thinking skills.  That was the the introductory paragraph.  Here, they 'lightly' suggest that while she had courage, she was nuts - writing 'possibly voices in her head' . This will put the average reader in a mode to swallow anything they say because having 'voices in the head' is a considered a bad thing by our society.  Yet, can they dispute the proof that this young illiterate girl got results?  Can anyone PROVE she did not have angelic visitations?  The answer is a simple No.  In today's increasingly secular society, what mankind cannot explain, they dismiss with a sneer of disdain.    

The article continues to show that we are supposed to be stupid/gullible enough to accept the seven facts they present as 'widely accepted' 

Ask yourself: accepted by whom?  The cynical members of our ungodly society? Everyone know what "Click bait" is?  This article turned into just that.  Making mountains out of molehills.

The article next tries to discredit her by pointing out that Joan didn't know her surname.   This is the point the author of the article mixed fact and fiction (a.k.a. 'spun' the facts by mixing assumptions/lies/truth).  The explanation is simple: her father was Jacques d'Arc - hence we call her Joan of Arc.  

Here is another example of secularism from the article:  In modern times, some doctors and scholars have “diagnosed” Joan of Arc with disorders ranging from epilepsy to schizophrenia....some experts have suggested that Joan suffered from one of numerous neurological and psychiatric condition that trigger hallucinations or delusions, including migraines, bipolar disorder, and brain lesions, to name just a few. Yet another theory holds that she contracted bovine tuberculosis, which can cause seizures and dementia, from drinking unpasteurized milk and tending cattle as a young girl.

Remember those mountains out of mole hills I mentioned?  

C'mon!   You can't diagnose anyone that lived all most six centuries ago! Truth is, the doctors and scholars were speculating and it was all based on what was 'wrong' with Joan.  They were trying to come to terms with something that they couldn't understand, let alone explain.

Okay, in the article, now that they've 'prepped' the average reader, here it is, the lie:  While commander of the French army, Joan of Arc didn’t participate in active combat. 

Course, then the article states she was wounded at least twice.

By their own writing, she obviously did participate in battle. She could not have been wounded if she hadn't.

In both books I read (see above), Joan obtained a sword by divine means and the sword WAS used by Joan.  Actually, the sword was wielded by angels whenever in Joan's hands because she didn't know how to use it.  

The article also stated Joan was responsible for outlining strategies.  

Time for more critical thinking.

Just how is a no-name/nobody farmer's daughter supposed to have learned battle strategy? Specifically, strategy that won battles?  How is an illiterate farm girl supposed to understand diplomacy or the 'art' of war?  She certainly did not read about it (she signed her 'confession' with an X).

I'll tell you how: Joan had a rare kind of faith.  The kind that called angels to her.  She came to Earth with a divine work to do and she did it - for which effort she was roasted alive. 

For the love of truth, why couldn't the article have been more about the fact that if Joan hadn't helped the French defeat the English, there never would have been a United States of America?  Now that is a story worth telling!