Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

You say: We have already established that skeptics can find the implausibility of the story humorous, but that is to miss the point in miracle stories.

I don't follow your point. Monty Python's The Life of Brian is a satire on the Jesus Christ miracle myth. What point are the skeptics who find humor in the movie...missing? And what is wrong with doing so?

Monty Python would never be confused with serious literature, or with the Bible itself. Monty Python might make believers laugh, but it wouldn’t necessarily make them unbelievers in miracle stories. The Book of Mormon taps into this belief in miracle stories; it doesn’t make fun of it. Skeptics are roundly condemned. Even believers in the Bible who say miracles are a thing of the past are hypocrites—God is a God of miracles, and miracles have ceased because of unbelief. The Book of Mormon doesn’t mock miracles—it defends them.

You say: "Nevertheless, according to the witnesses, Spalding didn’t write about God, and you can’t take God out of this story."

Well Spalding has religion and God in the MSCC story though God isn't a contributing character. So God can be in the story. I wonder if the witnesses meant by the word "religion" any excerpts taken from the Bible and the Jesus myth being changed by him going to america or did they also mean God as a participating character. And yes I have difficulty understanding how God can be taken out of the Laban story which Lake recalled.

I agree with Glenn—Lake is probably confused. You seem to be headed toward a new position that allows Spalding to discuss religion and God without including Jesus in America, long passages from the Bible, or God as a character (giving revelations). This isn’t what the witnesses were saying. In the Book of Mormon, God and religion isn’t merely an incidental topic. The Book of Mormon isn’t just a history; it’s also a foundational document for continuing miracles and revelations through Joseph Smith. Thus God takes an active part in the book, in bringing forth the book, and on into the future of believers. This is far removed from Spalding’s concerns. I doubt the witnesses read much beyond the beginning of the Book of Mormon, and therefore their comment about religious matter being added pertains to that portion. The lost 116 pages were less religious and closer to what is found in Mosiah. It was more about the kings and less about the priests and sermons, and definitely did not include the Isaiah chapters. However, it was nevertheless religious in message. This can be discerned by references in later books to what was said in the lost MS. One of the main things was Lehi’s dictum that obedience to the commandments was necessary for prosperity, and disobedience would lead to destruction. The brass plates, Laban’s sword, and the Liahona are also mentioned. The original beginning of the Book of Mormon was written by Mormon using Lehi’s record—not by Nephi—and undoubtedly had Mormon’s commentary interspersed. So it was still far more religious than Spalding would have written or his witnesses remembered.

I'm very serious, the story portrays a very inefficient, ineffective God, not the least bit all powerful. That's why I've been telling you I'm not impressed with the ethics in it. Yes I appreciate from a believer's point of view they don't see it like I do..because they are blind and unable to criticize the God character. To a religious individual that character truly exist, it doesn't to me. Just like Glenn above in a post, figures God really participated in exiling the N. Israelites in 720 B.C.

Well, it is improper to impose your paradigm on the Book of Mormon. Obviously an atheistic paradigm won’t work on a miracle book. (I will bypass a discussion of the problems an atheist might encounter talking about ethics and morality. Needless to say, those who reject God do not have perfect vision either. Morality and ethics are extremely difficult subjects, mostly because they are concepts that exist only in the human mind.) The book’s ethics aren’t yours—but it’s not value-free. The Book of Mormon has different ethics--which might be called theocratic ethics.

Who and when was all this information being documented. Who outside the smith family documented when he first told the family about the plates and when was this information relayed to others outside the family?

His mother and brother William verified the timeline Joseph Smith gave. This timeline was well known and no one in the family, nor friends or enemies, challenged this timeline.

Do you really think in 1823...there were plates that Smith had to get and if so, who made those plates? And why did they have to go to a hill to get them?

In 1823 and 1824, there was no need for actual plates since Joseph Smith was unable to get them and was evidently content to tell stories about their content. However, in 1827, he decided to publish a translation and so he pretended to remove the plates from the hill. To make the story more convincing, he evidently made a set of plates (I believe out of tin), which he kept in a box or wrapped in a cloth. Joseph Smith allowed his family and friends to handle or lift the concealed plates, but not to see them.

In those 6 years that Smith was thinking about the Book of Mormon did anyone ever note him write anything down in preparation, any notes made etc?

No. None that I know of. And I doubt that he did since there was no MS used in the Book of Mormon’s production. Joseph Smith averaged 8 pages per day, which can be done in a few hours, so I believe he spent the rest of the time going over things in mind and reading the Bible. He was in control of when and how long he would dictate.

How often did Smith read the Bible, how familiar was he with its content, the history of the Hebrews? How do you know what his knowledge was?

In his 1832 history, he admitted he was very familiar not only with the Bible, but also with religious debates of his time. Of course, religion was a hot topic in the Smith home, especially after Alvin died and Lucy’s minister implied he had gone to hell because he belonged to no church. The Smith children were unbaptized. According to William, his father was angry with that minister. Joseph Sr. was a Universalist (who believed Alvin was saved anyway) and couldn’t have been pleased when his wife joined the Presbyterian minister’s church and then pressured other family members to join. What about Alvin? Discussion of religion must have been intense in the Smith home after 1823—enter Joseph Smith Jr.

You say: Joseph Smith was a passable Methodist exhorter

By whose opinion? And doesn't this simply indicate he was a good seller, that it doesn't indicate any knowledge of the Bible?

Orsamus Turner, who left Palmyra about 1822 but occasionally returned. He also said young Joseph Smith belonged to Palmyra’s debating club. Letters Joseph Smith wrote in 1829, as well as his early revelations, show that he was able to weave Bible language into new compositions. His mother said he read the Bible more than other books, and Joseph Smith’s 1832 history admits he was very familiar the Bible and religious subjects. Indeed, his home was charged with the topic, especially after Alvin died in Nov. 1823 and when Lucy and other family members joined the Presbyterian church in the Palmyra revival in 1824-25.

Part of what made Joseph Smith convincing was his knowledge of the Bible. He also possessed great physical charisma and was a practiced con man. The story of the plates and the treasure guardian (“angel”) grew out of—even overlapped--his treasure seeing activities. In 1827, he brought the two interests together in the Book of Mormon project.

Dan, I'm not judging. I'm stating things matter of factly. And yes, the practice in the community of B.C. is very much to do with Smith's polygamy that he started and encouraged the other men to practice. Because their attitude in the B.C. community and the way they practice it, exchanging young girls with each other, treating them like one would breed cows..in some cases treating them as slaves..is exactly what was practiced by B.Y.

What is “B.C.”? However, you are judging Joseph Smith by your value system. I certainly don’t share Joseph Smith’s values, but I want to understand them. I’m sure sexual gratification had something to do with Joseph Smith’s motivations, but how did he rationalize such behavior to himself and others? In my view, your characterization is too reductionistic. Joseph Smith was more complex than that.

You are the one attempting to justify..."he had trouble with monogamy".. what difference does that make? Men who have trouble with monogamy seek sex outside of marriage be it prostitute, concubines or other women available. But it's quite convenient to instead breed them..isn't it? Or to ask other men for their daughters and wives until the breeding gets going for future stock?

Yes he changed the rules..his idea of polygamy was to use women for sex and encouraged men in a polygamous system meant to breed more females to supply all the men in the upper hierarchy with lots of females for sexual use, slaves and breeding of more females. After 12 - 14 years once the system is started these men can have a yearly batch of females to exchange with one another and a constant supply into their old age.

I’m not justifying; I’m seeking to understand a complex religious person’s motives. Your perspective is too feminist, and doesn’t consider women cheat too. From an evolutionary perspective, polygamy is the norm. Whereas monogamy is a woman’s way of insuring her children thrive amid scarce resources over the genes of other women.

And the point being this behavior indicated he was an opportunist using his authority for self interest, not the interest of religion or as a pious fraud.

As MCB pointed out, polygamy comes later. If all Joseph Smith wanted was sex, being a minister isn’t the best way to go about doing that. The situation was more complex than that. Joseph Smith built a theology around plural marriage, which had many antecedents in Europe and America. It wasn’t just something he threw in quickly to exploit his followers. It was a well thought out world view—not one you would adopt—but one in which Joseph Smith had plenty of company.

by the way, I have your book so if there are any pages you'd like me to read just list them. Not the whole book at this point in time though.

Try p. 618, fn 6, for a brief history of Christian polygamy in Europe and America.

[_Dan Vogel]

And doesn't this simply indicate he was a good seller, that it doesn't indicate any knowledge of the Bible?

Joseph was home-schooled at several points in his life. The Bible was just about the only text they had for this effort.

Joseph legitimized polygamy to justify his adultery. If he were an adulterer, he couldn't be a religious leader. He started out as a religious leader, but he wanted his sin, too.

Yes. This view leads to a more complex 3-D Joseph Smith. It forces you to listen more carefully to the revelation on polygamy (D&C 132). Try reading it with ears tuned to an argument between Joseph Smith and Emma, and tell me what you hear.

[_marg]

Dan, I'm not judging. I'm stating things matter of factly. And yes, the practice in the community of B.C. is very much to do with Smith's polygamy that he started and encouraged the other men to practice. Because their attitude in the B.C. community and the way they practice it, exchanging young girls with each other, treating them like one would breed cows..in some cases treating them as slaves..is exactly what was practiced by B.Y.

What is “B.C.”? However, you are judging Joseph Smith by your value system. I certainly don’t share Joseph Smith’s values, but I want to understand them. I’m sure sexual gratification had something to do with Joseph Smith’s motivations, but how did he rationalize such behavior to himself and others? In my view, your characterization is too reductionistic. Joseph Smith was more complex than that.

B.C. is British Columbia. Polygamy is before the courts currently. No I'm not judging. I'm describing as how it is currently practiced in the Mormon associated communities in B.C. The women are treated like cattle to be bred. Young females are traded amongst men between communities in the U.S.and the communities here and within. Families have brought their young daughters across the border and given them over to Warren Jeffs..in exchange they bring back young females to breed.

I brought up J. Smith's polygamy as an example of his opportunistic nature, that his behavior in this had nothing to do with pious fraud. That he took advantage of his position of authority to have sex. Sexual trists came first before polygamy. Sexual gratification for himself was his motivation. Polygamy justified his behavior to others. The way he practiced was not the polygamy he encouraged others to practice.

How did did he rationalize such behavior to himself and others? To himself he likely thought his polygamy didn't hurt anyone significantly, and why not take advantage of the situation of gullible people. This was an extension of treasure seeking, if people are willing, why not. For others what's there to rationalize? Some men wouldn't need much convincing to take on women they could have sex with, who could also be used as hired help but without having to pay them. And then the females bred could be exchanged amongst the elite and as they got older there would be a steady supply of upcoming more females. I guess sex is a powerful motivator and he didn't have trouble with some men, encouraging them to impregnate women.

You are the one attempting to justify..."he had trouble with monogamy".. what difference does that make? Men who have trouble with monogamy seek sex outside of marriage be it prostitute, concubines or other women available. But it's quite convenient to instead breed them..isn't it? Or to ask other men for their daughters and wives until the breeding gets going for future stock?

Yes he changed the rules..his idea of polygamy was to use women for sex and encouraged men in a polygamous system meant to breed more females to supply all the men in the upper hierarchy with lots of females for sexual use, slaves and breeding of more females. After 12 - 14 years once the system is started these men can have a yearly batch of females to exchange with one another and a constant supply into their old age.

I’m not justifying; I’m seeking to understand a complex religious person’s motives.

Why tell me he had trouble with monogamy. So do lots of men, so what? What's that got to do with anything?

Your perspective is too feminist, and doesn’t consider women cheat too.

What have I said that's feminist? What does women cheating have to do with any of this? What I've done is describe the practice that was encouraged, I've not made any judgment about it. When I bring up "cows" and breeding..I didn't make that up, I believe Kimball was the one who described it in that manner.

From an evolutionary perspective, polygamy is the norm. Whereas monogamy is a woman’s way of insuring her children thrive amid scarce resources over the genes of other women.

You appear to be presenting an argument to justify the polygamy as they practiced it. There are different types of polygamy Dan. I was describing how they practiced it, how it is currently practiced in Mormon associated polygamous compounds still today. They thought and still do ..of polygamy as breeding of women, looking upon women as if they were a cow and exchanging young females bred amongst themselves. That's not the type of polygamy practiced as a norm.

And the point being this behavior indicated he was an opportunist using his authority for self interest, not the interest of religion or as a pious fraud.

As MCB pointed out, polygamy comes later. If all Joseph Smith wanted was sex, being a minister isn’t the best way to go about doing that. The situation was more complex than that. Joseph Smith built a theology around plural marriage, which had many antecedents in Europe and America. It wasn’t just something he threw in quickly to exploit his followers. It was a well thought out world view—not one you would adopt—but one in which Joseph Smith had plenty of company.

Did I ever say in this discussion that Smith wanted sex and so he became a minister to do so. For the record I didn't. You are assuming I have. I brought up polygamy to illustrate his opportunistic nature. And to point out in this case, polygamy had nothing to do with being a pious fraud. He used his position to exploit, to obtain women for sex. He was caught having sexual trysts before polygamy got started by him.

Give me an example in the past that was the sort of polygamy he encouraged..of forming an isolated community and the men exchanging with each other their young daughters even into their old age.

And what makes you think he didn't institute it as a means to exploit? The people being exploited in this case are the women...they are looked upon as if cattle to be bred.

[_marg]

Joseph legitimized polygamy to justify his adultery. If he were an adulterer, he couldn't be a religious leader. He started out as a religious leader, but he wanted his sin, too.

Are you disagreeing with me or what? Of course he used polygamy to justify his trysts. And for the record as I said to Dan, I never said he became a minister in order to have sex.

[_marg]

Monty Python would never be confused with serious literature, or with the Bible itself. Monty Python might make believers laugh, but it wouldn’t necessarily make them unbelievers in miracle stories. The Book of Mormon taps into this belief in miracle stories; it doesn’t make fun of it. Skeptics are roundly condemned. Even believers in the Bible who say miracles are a thing of the past are hypocrites—God is a God of miracles, and miracles have ceased because of unbelief. The Book of Mormon doesn’t mock miracles—it defends them.

I have no idea why you’re going on about this crap. Who on earth has ever suggested Monty Python would be confused with serious literature? This discussion on this tangent, started by Glenn pointing out that John Miller found humor in Spalding’s story. And he argued that the Book of Mormon s not humorous and he perceived a section in MSCC could be viewed as humorous and therefore concluded that Miller must have been recalling Manuscript Story –Conneaut Creek. I think it’s a possibility but not one I think a conclusion can be banked on. Nor from that conclusion the next which is your theory that therefore Manuscript Found didn't exist ..Miller was confused on that and on the rest of his statement and so too all the witnesses ..they all had faulty memory for their entire statements.

We don’t know what Miller found humorous and we don’t have Manuscript Found and we don’t even know Miller’s sense of humor or perspective so it’s far-fetched to jump to a conclusion that he could not have been referring to Manuscript Found, that he must have been recalling Manuscript Story- Conneaut Creek.

I also don’t particularly care that you think the Book of Mormon is serious literature and no one can find humor it. The Monty Python writers for the movie The Life of Brian viewed the Jesus myth as humorous ..despite the fact that believers believe in the miracle, that the Bible is viewed as serious literature...the writers of that movie used that myth which they perceived as humorous. I found that movie extremely funny ...and so too do a lot of people.

Do me a favor Dan, don't teach me about your interpretation of the Book of Mormon and how it should be viewed, I'm not interested in your perspective.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

B.C. is British Columbia. Polygamy is before the courts currently. No I'm not judging. I'm describing as how it is currently practiced in the Mormon associated communities in B.C. The women are treated like cattle to be bred. Young females are traded amongst men between communities in the U.S.and the communities here and within. Families have brought their young daughters across the border and given them over to Warren Jeffs..in exchange they bring back young females to breed.

I thought so, but I hadn’t heard about Mormon fundamentalists in that area. I thought they were all in the western states. Warren Jeffs is in prison I believe.

I brought up J. Smith's polygamy as an example of his opportunistic nature, that his behavior in this had nothing to do with pious fraud. That he took advantage of his position of authority to have sex. Sexual trists came first before polygamy. Sexual gratification for himself was his motivation. Polygamy justified his behavior to others. The way he practiced was not the polygamy he encouraged others to practice.

I would say Joseph Smith practiced concubinage. There definitely was an element of exploitation of his followers, but as I said it’s more complicated than that.

How did did he rationalize such behavior to himself and others? To himself he likely thought his polygamy didn't hurt anyone significantly, and why not take advantage of the situation of gullible people. This was an extension of treasure seeking, if people are willing, why not.

I would suggest that in part it was a way of binding others to him, of proving their loyalty to him. Not unlike gangs and mafia crossing moral boundaries for initiation. This is one of the motivations for other cult leaders engaging in sexual exploitation; it feeds their Narcissism. It’s about power, not sex merely.

For others what's there to rationalize? Some men wouldn't need much convincing to take on women they could have sex with, who could also be used as hired help but without having to pay them. And then the females bred could be exchanged amongst the elite and as they got older there would be a steady supply of upcoming more females. I guess sex is a powerful motivator and he didn't have trouble with some men, encouraging them to impregnate women.

This might be true with Mormon fundamentalists, but it certainly wasn’t true for Joseph Smith’s followers. The introduction of plural marriage in Nauvoo almost drove Orson Pratt insane, and other men needed convincing. Hyrum rejected it right off, but eventually became convinced by various arguments. Eternal marriage was the first step, and the concept of celestial polygamy came next. Hyrum could be sealed to his dead wife for eternity and his second wife also for eternity. In the next life, he would have two wives, so why not here? That’s what broke Hyrum’s resistance down.

Why tell me he had trouble with monogamy. So do lots of men, so what? What's that got to do with anything?

The point being he changed the rules to make it right. Like MCB said. Instead of failing as a prophet by being promiscuous, he made it appear that he was like prophets in the Old Testament.

What have I said that's feminist? What does women cheating have to do with any of this? What I've done is describe the practice that was encouraged, I've not made any judgment about it. When I bring up "cows" and breeding..I didn't make that up, I believe Kimball was the one who described it in that manner.

My point is that the language you choose is in defense of women—not bad—but it would be foreign to Joseph Smith’s male-dominant world. You are showing your own cultural assumptions and biases. Women in Joseph Smith day resisted polygamy because they believed it forbidden by God, not for the reasons you state—this is mainly because those things applied to attitudes about monogamous marriages as well. In other words, men applied those attitudes to marriage regardless of whether it was monogamous or polygamous.

You appear to be presenting an argument to justify the polygamy as they practiced it. There are different types of polygamy Dan. I was describing how they practiced it, how it is currently practiced in Mormon associated polygamous compounds still today. They thought and still do ..of polygamy as breeding of women, looking upon women as if they were a cow and exchanging young females bred amongst themselves. That's not the type of polygamy practiced as a norm.

You say this because you are judging a particular example, whereas I’m trying to be methodologically neutral about the principle as generally practiced. Moreover, I’m trying to lend complexity to Joseph Smith’s introduction of polygamy, and you are associating Joseph Smith with an admittedly non-representative example.

Did I ever say in this discussion that Smith wanted sex and so he became a minister to do so. For the record I didn't. You are assuming I have. I brought up polygamy to illustrate his opportunistic nature. And to point out in this case, polygamy had nothing to do with being a pious fraud. He used his position to exploit, to obtain women for sex. He was caught having sexual trysts before polygamy got started by him.

OK. Perhaps we are making progress on this matter. You agree then that polygamy wasn’t a motivation when Joseph Smith began. That’s all I’m saying. But when you say “polygamy had nothing to do with being a pious fraud,” it sounds like you are using it denounce the idea that he could ever be a pious fraud, or even that he could simultaneously a pious fraud and exploiter. If so, it doesn’t follow that that is necessarily true. Humans are complex, and by nature hypocritical.

Give me an example in the past that was the sort of polygamy he encouraged..of forming an isolated community and the men exchanging with each other their young daughters even into their old age.

I’m not sure what you are asking here and what that would prove.

And what makes you think he didn't institute it as a means to exploit? The people being exploited in this case are the women...they are looked upon as if cattle to be bred.

Are you talking about Joseph Smith or the B.C. community? If Joseph Smith, then you might explain the difference between men who exploited women through polygamy and those in Joseph Smith’s day who did it through monogamy. This attitude was prevalent in Joseph Smith’s society. You may see polygamy as inherently exploitive—it might be—but many of the women in fundamentalist Mormon marriages enter polygamy voluntarily, and will defend it. Why? Because they think it’s a commandment from God. Joseph Smith may have believed he had God’s sanction for polygamy. Indeed, he had an elaborate rationale for that kind of marriage, but the emotional turmoil he put his followers through, both male and female, was abusive. Joseph Smith essentially coerced women into a sexual relationship who otherwise would not have done so.

[Guest]

Marg,

I have no idea why you’re going on about this crap. Who on earth has ever suggested Monty Python would be confused with serious literature? This discussion on this tangent, started by Glenn pointing out that John Miller found humor in Spalding’s story. And he argued that the Book of Mormon s not humorous and he perceived a section in MSCC could be viewed as humorous and therefore concluded that Miller must have been recalling Manuscript Story –Conneaut Creek. I think it’s a possibility but not one I think a conclusion can be banked on. Nor from that conclusion the next which is your theory that therefore Manuscript Found didn't exist ..Miller was confused on that and on the rest of his statement and so too all the witnesses ..they all had faulty memory for their entire statements.

We don’t know what Miller found humorous and we don’t have Manuscript Found and we don’t even know Miller’s sense of humor or perspective so it’s far-fetched to jump to a conclusion that he could not have been referring to Manuscript Found, that he must have been recalling Manuscript Story- Conneaut Creek.

You are the one who started this tangent by resisting Glenn’s rather simple observation that the Book of Mormon doesn’t fit Miller’s memory of Spalding’s use of humor.

I also don’t particularly care that you think the Book of Mormon is serious literature and no one can find humor it. The Monty Python writers for the movie The Life of Brian viewed the Jesus myth as humorous ..despite the fact that believers believe in the miracle, that the Bible is viewed as serious literature...the writers of that movie used that myth which they perceived as humorous. I found that movie extremely funny ...and so too do a lot of people.

As we have discussed at great length, Monty Python was brought up by you and has nothing to do with anything—just another red herring argument.

Do me a favor Dan, don't teach me about your interpretation of the Book of Mormon and how it should be viewed, I'm not interested in your perspective.

In this instance, I’m not giving my perspective on the Book of Mormon; I’m simply telling you what anyone who cares to read it already knows—it’s a book about miracles and defends miracles. Your lack of interest speaks volumes. At least my perspective is informed by a close reading of the text under discussion, whereas yours is uninformed and intentional ignorance. Tell me, Marg, why should anyone be interested in your perspective?

[_marg]

Yes I disagree with Glenn's conclusion because I include other evidence I don't simply look at one piece of evidence to the exclusion of other evidence. I also said it's a possibility that Miller was confused on that issue because he had said he perused all the manuscripts frequently, consequently I think he might recall being amused and without associating it with a particularly storyline.

As we have discussed at great length, Monty Python was brought up by you and has nothing to do with anything—just another red herring argument.

My point was that humor is based on context and perspective. That we don't know the context or perspective in order to reach a high probability conclusion based on Miller's comment.

In this instance, I’m not giving my perspective on the Book of Mormon; I’m simply telling you what anyone who cares to read it already knows—it’s a book about miracles and defends miracles.

And so does the Bible and yet Monty Python made movie parodies because they saw humor.

Your lack of interest speaks volumes. At least my perspective is informed by a close reading of the text under discussion, whereas yours is uninformed and intentional ignorance. Tell me, Marg, why should anyone be interested in your perspective?

Dan, my lack of interest is in your perspective.

This guy in a review on Amazon points out some of the problems.

"Still, the explanation that many of the stories and characters of the Book of Mormon have their origins in the people and events of Joseph Smith's life is quite a stretch, and I agree with another reviewer on this site who finds it ironic that a religious skeptic puts so much stock in psychological analysis (not to mention in his own suppositions and guesses). The fact is, the Book of Mormon contains so many character types and stories that many "autobiographical" details could be found in it for any of us. The same evidence, in the hands of a Vogel or anyone given to critical literary analysis, could be marshalled to support a claim that Joseph Smith wrote the Bible or, for that matter, Huckleberry Finn as autobiographical works, or that Dan Vogel wrote the works of Shakespeare. Those not terribly familiar with the Book of Mormon text may tend to go along with Vogel's claims, but those who understand its complexity and hundreds of characters and storylines will appreciate that Vogel's focus on selected convenient "autobiographical parallels" is more akin to the thesis paper of an advanced student in English literature who finds interesting similarities in two independent pieces of fiction--all the while disregarding all the nonsimilar elements--than an analysis that can be taken as a legitimate, historical explanation for the Book of Mormon's origins. "

[_marg]

I thought so, but I hadn’t heard about Mormon fundamentalists in that area. I thought they were all in the western states. Warren Jeffs is in prison I believe.

The evidence brought before the courts is evidence before Jeffs was put in jail. It includes some families escorting their daughters illegally to the U.S. to hand their them over to Jeffs I believe one as young as 12. And in return they brought back females.

I would say Joseph Smith practiced concubinage. There definitely was an element of exploitation of his followers, but as I said it’s more complicated than that.

The sort of polygamy practiced was an exploitation of women.

How did did he rationalize such behavior to himself and others? To himself he likely thought his polygamy didn't hurt anyone significantly, and why not take advantage of the situation of gullible people. This was an extension of treasure seeking, if people are willing, why not.

I would suggest that in part it was a way of binding others to him, of proving their loyalty to him. Not unlike gangs and mafia crossing moral boundaries for initiation. This is one of the motivations for other cult leaders engaging in sexual exploitation; it feeds their Narcissism. It’s about power, not sex merely.

If you are talking about Smith's sexual affairs, I think the evidence is that well before polygamy started he was having sexual affairs..this is libido related. If someone doesn't have a high libido, they aren't going to bother. It's not complicated. Then it progressed to wanting the daughters and wives of other men..and that was using his power to enable his drive to be fed. And he probably enjoyed the power of being able to manipulate people.

For others what's there to rationalize? Some men wouldn't need much convincing to take on women they could have sex with, who could also be used as hired help but without having to pay them. And then the females bred could be exchanged amongst the elite and as they got older there would be a steady supply of upcoming more females. I guess sex is a powerful motivator and he didn't have trouble with some men, encouraging them to impregnate women.

This might be true with Mormon fundamentalists, but it certainly wasn’t true for Joseph Smith’s followers. The introduction of plural marriage in Nauvoo almost drove Orson Pratt insane, and other men needed convincing. Hyrum rejected it right off, but eventually became convinced by various arguments. Eternal marriage was the first step, and the concept of celestial polygamy came next. Hyrum could be sealed to his dead wife for eternity and his second wife also for eternity. In the next life, he would have two wives, so why not here? That’s what broke Hyrum’s resistance down.

You are not addressing the concept I brought up, that women were used as one one would breed cows. That's how it's practiced today and given what I've read, it seems that was how it was practiced then. The men didn't marry for love or because they cared about the women, they married to breed, but I think it likely a sexual drive fueled willing compliance.

Why tell me he had trouble with monogamy. So do lots of men, so what? What's that got to do with anything?

The point being he changed the rules to make it right. Like MCB said. Instead of failing as a prophet by being promiscuous, he made it appear that he was like prophets in the Old Testament.

Good thinking on his part.

What have I said that's feminist? What does women cheating have to do with any of this? What I've done is describe the practice that was encouraged, I've not made any judgment about it. When I bring up "cows" and breeding..I didn't make that up, I believe Kimball was the one who described it in that manner.

My point is that the language you choose is in defense of women—not bad—but it would be foreign to Joseph Smith’s male-dominant world. You are showing your own cultural assumptions and biases. Women in Joseph Smith day resisted polygamy because they believed it forbidden by God, not for the reasons you state—this is mainly because those things applied to attitudes about monogamous marriages as well. In other words, men applied those attitudes to marriage regardless of whether it was monogamous or polygamous.

I don't know what language of mine you are referring to. If it's the breeding aspect, it's because of things B. Young said that I've read, and what Kimball is alledged to have said in describing taking on more women.

What cultural biases am I showing? That I think women taken on by men in the upper hierarchy of the community back then, and of the communities today which follow the same practice..do so for breeding purposes and therefore to supply more females amongst themselves into old age ...to breed again with in the future... is exploitative? What part don't you agree with the exploitative accusation or the breeding part or both?

You say this because you are judging a particular example, whereas I’m trying to be methodologically neutral about the principle as generally practiced. Moreover, I’m trying to lend complexity to Joseph Smith’s introduction of polygamy, and you are associating Joseph Smith with an admittedly non-representative example.

I've acknowledged right from the beginning that Smith's personal polygamy was not what he encouraged or taught others to practice. It's really not complicated what Smith was doing or why for himself.

OK. Perhaps we are making progress on this matter. You agree then that polygamy wasn’t a motivation when Joseph Smith began. That’s all I’m saying. But when you say “polygamy had nothing to do with being a pious fraud,” it sounds like you are using it denounce the idea that he could ever be a pious fraud, or even that he could simultaneously a pious fraud and exploiter. If so, it doesn’t follow that that is necessarily true. Humans are complex, and by nature hypocritical.

He used polygamy to justify his already established penchant for extramarital sex. He thought up a polygamous system for others and it could benefit himself to some extent which encouraged men to use women to breed.. to encourage the exchange women and young females amongst themselves in the upper hierarchy. I do think his libido was a factor in the system he encouraged. It's not the sort of polygamy practiced through the ages or even by other religious groups.

Give me an example in the past that was the sort of polygamy he encouraged..of forming an isolated community and the men exchanging with each other their young daughters even into their old age.

I’m not sure what you are asking here and what that would prove.

I'm asking you to give me an example of polygamy which aligns with the polygamy Smith encouraged, which the men practiced and still do today. You made a comment that polygamy is common through the ages and world wide, so did all groups practice it the same way? Were isolated communities encouraged to have as many wives as possible, to take on young daughters of others get them pregnant immediately, to exchange young females and women amongst themselves into their old age?

And what makes you think he didn't institute it as a means to exploit? The people being exploited in this case are the women...they are looked upon as if cattle to be bred.

Are you talking about Joseph Smith or the B.C. community? If Joseph Smith, then you might explain the difference between men who exploited women through polygamy and those in Joseph Smith’s day who did it through monogamy. This attitude was prevalent in Joseph Smith’s society. You may see polygamy as inherently exploitive—it might be—but many of the women in fundamentalist Mormon marriages enter polygamy voluntarily, and will defend it. Why? Because they think it’s a commandment from God. Joseph Smith may have believed he had God’s sanction for polygamy. Indeed, he had an elaborate rationale for that kind of marriage, but the emotional turmoil he put his followers through, both male and female, was abusive. Joseph Smith essentially coerced women into a sexual relationship who otherwise would not have done so.

You say 'it may be exploitative'? Dan I'm not thinking about the sex..I'm thinking about the exchanging of young females/daughters with each other and getting these young females pregnant as soon as possible..along with the pressure from the system with little other alternatives available.

I'm not highly critical of all of J. Smith's coercions because I suspect it didn't take much in many cases. The ones who refused were sometimes verbally abused so there was pressure to agree. But on the whole I think many were "star struck". I think women then when it came to Smith, used polygamy as an excuse to justify their willingness.

The weather is too nice to be spent on this...I should take a break completely from this discussion.

[_Dan Vogel]

Marg,

Dan, my lack of interest is in your perspective.

You said this in response to the following statement I made:

Monty Python would never be confused with serious literature, or with the Bible itself. Monty Python might make believers laugh, but it wouldn’t necessarily make them unbelievers in miracle stories. The Book of Mormon taps into this belief in miracle stories; it doesn’t make fun of it. Skeptics are roundly condemned. Even believers in the Bible who say miracles are a thing of the past are hypocrites—God is a God of miracles, and miracles have ceased because of unbelief. The Book of Mormon doesn’t mock miracles—it defends them.

If you had read the Book of Mormon, you would know that I wasn’t giving my perspective but simply stating what the Book of Mormon says, even paraphrasing the Book of Mormon itself in the second to last sentence (see 2 Nephi 28). The Book of Mormon is one of the miracles that should not be rejected (2 Nephi 29).

This guy in a review on Amazon points out some of the problems.

"Still, the explanation that many of the stories and characters of the Book of Mormon have their origins in the people and events of Joseph Smith's life is quite a stretch, and I agree with another reviewer on this site who finds it ironic that a religious skeptic puts so much stock in psychological analysis (not to mention in his own suppositions and guesses). The fact is, the Book of Mormon contains so many character types and stories that many "autobiographical" details could be found in it for any of us. The same evidence, in the hands of a Vogel or anyone given to critical literary analysis, could be marshalled to support a claim that Joseph Smith wrote the Bible or, for that matter, Huckleberry Finn as autobiographical works, or that Dan Vogel wrote the works of Shakespeare. Those not terribly familiar with the Book of Mormon text may tend to go along with Vogel's claims, but those who understand its complexity and hundreds of characters and storylines will appreciate that Vogel's focus on selected convenient "autobiographical parallels" is more akin to the thesis paper of an advanced student in English literature who finds interesting similarities in two independent pieces of fiction--all the while disregarding all the nonsimilar elements--than an analysis that can be taken as a legitimate, historical explanation for the Book of Mormon's origins. "

Marg, you should know better. This is written by “R. Smith” of SLC. The argument is typical apologetic. The person is probably Robert F. Smith, who posts on the FAIR board, and with whom I have been familiar since meeting him about 30 years ago at a MHA conference. I am familiar with his style of apologetic. Mr. Smith misunderstands what is attempted in my biography of Joseph Smith; he is particularly wrong to interpret my discussion of possible biographical elements in the Book of Mormon as proof of its modern origin. Being an apologist, Smith can only see things polemically. As I explain in the introduction, the aim of the book is not to rehash the ancient vs. modern debate, but rather to find meaning in the assumption of Joseph Smith’s authorship. In other words, assuming Joseph Smith as author, what does it mean? Moreover, why was the book written and what does it tell us about Joseph Smith’s motives and future plans? Literary critics use the autobiographical or historical approach all the time. Of course, one is never sure about meanings given autobiographical significance, but the same can be said for the ancient approach R. Smith uses. Neither can produce a definitive answer to historicity—only finding actual Nephite artifacts can do that.

Nevertheless, Marg, I can see your usual style of polemics—bypass all the favorable reviews and go directly to anything that will support your preconceptions. Never mind it comes from a Mormon apologist.