Two Items on Joseph Smith and Early Mormon Polygamy

[_Daniel Peterson]

Motivated by comments in Mercury's "Just want to vent" thread down in the Terrestrial Forum, but not wishing to interfere with (or become enmeshed in) the venting, I mention two relatively recent items on Joseph Smith's early plural marriages that I think are helpful:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=721

http://www.amazon.com/Persistence-Polyg ... 193490113X

[_Themis]

Motivated by comments in Mercury's "Just want to vent" thread down in the Terrestrial Forum, but not wishing to interfere with (or become enmeshed in) the venting, I mention two relatively recent items on Joseph Smith's early plural marriages that I think are helpful:

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=721

http://www.amazon.com/Persistence-Polyg ... 193490113X

Your first link is not helpful. It is just one long attack article, attcking an author. I really wish that this was not one of the main thrusts of apologetics.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Your first link is not helpful. It is just one long attack article, attcking an author.

Nonsense.

I really wish that this was not one of the main thrusts of apologetics.

You're simply trying to evade the substance of the article.

[_Themis]

You're simply trying to evade the substance of the article.

Nonsense. It clearly is an attack article. I said nothing about whether it may have some good information, but one would need to sift through all the attacks. This is one of my biggest disappointments about apologetics.

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's a review of a book by a specific author. As such, it necessarily responds to that specific author, and criticizes that specific author's arguments and his use of evidence.

Your disappointment is misguided, misconceived, and misplaced.

[_Themis]

It's a review of a book by a specific author. As such, it necessarily responds to that specific author, and criticizes that specific author's arguments and his use of evidence.

Your disappointment is misguided, misconceived, and misplaced.

Hardly. This is one of the big problems with apologetics. Attacking the messenger. I have read many reviews including some of your own. You are part of the problem, so it is not surprising you do not agree. I think you are a nice guy, as I am sure the author of this attack piece is as well. He also does not limit his attack on just the author, but some others like compton as well.

If they would focus on the issues, the articles would be significantly shorter and more interesting to get through.

[_madeleine]

Doesn't matter, as Mormons can't get around Jesus' teaching that marriage is between one man and one woman. All else is something *other*.

Peace.

[_Joey]

When in doubt, in Provo and trying to defend Mormon history, referring them to FARMS/MI is always a safe bet given that their works on said topic are admittedly ignored by the secular academic community. But from the isolation of Provo, I guess it appears impressive!

Peterson is a bit delusional as he probably truly believes what is perceived as impressive writings on the campus of BYU, carries a lot of weight outside of Utah county. It happens!!!

[_Daniel Peterson]

This is one of the big problems with apologetics. Attacking the messenger.

Critiquing an author's published work.

it is not surprising you do not agree.

You're right. I don't agree.

***

"From the isolation of Provo"?

LOL.

Since mid-April, I've been isolated in (among other places) the parts of Provo known as Los Angeles, Frankfurt, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Amman, Barcelona, Grenada, Monte Carlo, Nice, Florence, Rome, Naples, Mykonos, Istanbul, Ephesus, Athens, Venice, Ravenna, and Jackson Hole. Next week, I'll be lecturing in the part of Provo called Las Vegas, and I'll go from there to another section of Provo known as Denver.

It would be nice, in some ways, to be even more isolated, but I just don't have the time.

For example: Over the past week and a half, while living my deeply isolated, insular, and secluded life, I've hosted two representatives of the Saudi royal family, a well-known historian from Belgium, and six shari‘a-court judges from Jordan.

And so on and so forth.

If I were Joey, I'd be very careful before labeling anybody else "delusional."

[_ludwigm]

You're simply trying to evade the substance of the article.

Nonsense. It clearly is an attack article. I said nothing about whether it may have some good information, but one would need to sift through all the attacks. This is one of my biggest disappointments about apologetics.

I've read the article. Every word of it. No substance.

"to sift through all the attacks"
I would use the expression "plough one's way through the mud"

There are some attacks left out.
1. The author is gay
2. The author's legs are stinking
3. The author is a democrat (l'hommage de bcspace and droopy)