BYU dumps employee's apologist page ....

[_truth dancer]

Excellent post Jason.

I think you summed up the issue quite succinctly!

~dancer~

[_wenglund]

I just had a thought (I know, there's a first time for everything).

Apologists these days seem to be in the habit of saying that we critics have a lot to explain away.

Which would you rather explain?

A rock in the Arabian desert bears the inscription NHM and is in roughly the same place a similar-sounding place is mentioned in the Book of Mormon.

A man sleeps with women (some teenagers and some married women) behind his wife's back and claims God commanded him to do so and that those who engaged in his "marriages" would ensure exaltation in heaven by so doing.

I don't know about you, but I'm cool with NHM.

I certainly agree that in some ways and for a variety of reasons it is far more difficult to explain away gossip, rumor, and speculation than it is to explain away archeological evidence, particular the more sensationalistic and sensationalized the gossip, rumor, and speculation. That is why it is such an effective tool in the hands of those inclined towards character assassinations.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I would condemn both. But for Joseph the issue is really multifaceted. Why did Joseph marry other women in the first place? If God really told him to do so then why was he so ungodly about how he did it? Why did he hide it from his wife? Why did he use his power to persuade those in a less powerful position to marry him? Why promise exaltation? Why marry other men's wives? Why tell a young woman or girl that she was his from the pre-existence? That is immoral in my opinion. Of course the idea of marrying a fourteen year old is repugnant now and then. Especially under the persuasive influence of a man that those he was trying to persuade viewed as THE PROPHET. Such a man has a fiduciary responsibility to take extra care not to abuse the power and influence he has over his followers. In the case of plural marriage it seems that that power was abused and thus the immorality of it seems highlighted. Like I said, if God commanded it it It was not rolled out in a very godly way.

Unlike you, I don't pretend to have the answers to those question, nor do I presume to sit in moral judgement absent sufficient fact and adequate perspective. Apparently, you and others think yourselves in a position to do so--which I find ironic given what I believe to be the immorality of character assasinations underway on this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Who Knows]

His site's back up now, though not on BYU's official website:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_5171406

Less than 24 hours after its removal from a university Web site, a polygamy page crafted by a Brigham Young University employee has a new home.
Jim Engebretsen has relaunched the page, which offers historical and scholarly works on the origins and status of polygamy within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at www.mormon-polygamy.org.

[_harmony]

I would condemn both. But for Joseph the issue is really multifaceted. Why did Joseph marry other women in the first place? If God really told him to do so then why was he so ungodly about how he did it? Why did he hide it from his wife? Why did he use his power to persuade those in a less powerful position to marry him? Why promise exaltation? Why marry other men's wives? Why tell a young woman or girl that she was his from the pre-existence? That is immoral in my opinion. Of course the idea of marrying a fourteen year old is repugnant now and then. Especially under the persuasive influence of a man that those he was trying to persuade viewed as THE PROPHET. Such a man has a fiduciary responsibility to take extra care not to abuse the power and influence he has over his followers. In the case of plural marriage it seems that that power was abused and thus the immorality of it seems highlighted. Like I said, if God commanded it it It was not rolled out in a very godly way.

Unlike you, I don't pretend to have the answers to those question, nor do I presume to sit in moral judgement absent sufficient fact and adequate perspective. Apparently, you and others think yourselves in a position to do so--which I find ironic given what I believe to be the immorality of character assasinations underway on this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The facts are sufficient and the perspective is adequate to make an accurate judgment, Wade. We have Joseph's own words, the words of his trusted friends and associates, the words of the wife he lied to, and the words of the women themselves. Nothing else is needed in order to reach a justifiable conclusion.

[_Runtu]

I just had a thought (I know, there's a first time for everything).

A man sleeps with women (some teenagers and some married women) behind his wife's back and claims God commanded him to do so and that those who engaged in his "marriages" would ensure exaltation in heaven by so doing.

I certainly agree that in some ways and for a variety of reasons it is far more difficult to explain away gossip, rumor, and speculation than it is to explain away archeological evidence, particular the more sensationalistic and sensationalized the gossip, rumor, and speculation. That is why it is such an effective tool in the hands of those inclined towards character assassinations.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm wondering what part of my statement is "gossip, rumor, [or] speculation." That statement is an accurate description of what Joseph Smith did (and I can document all of it), not character assassination. Which part is inaccurate?

Did Joseph Smith sleep with women who were not his lawful wives?
Were some of them already married and some of them teenagers?
Did he do this without Emma's knowledge or consent?
Did he inform his "wives" that their eternal reward (and that of their families) would be affected by accepting or declining his proposal?

A simple yes or no will do, Wade.

[_wenglund]

I understand that is your's and other people's speculation. I just don't think it ground for moral outrage and self-righteous indignation, particularly in light of the demonstrably rampant immorality in our own day and age (which, in other threads, you have ironically and irreverently chided the Church leaders for having "going too far" in their attempts to protect and prevent the youth of the Church from falling prey thereto).

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, that's the tu quoque fallacy, in case you're keeping score. Just because what you perceive as immorality goes uncondemned here (though some of us are probably about as concerned as you are in these matters), this does not mean we have no right to comment on the morality of Joseph Smith's behavior. If some middle-aged man today told his friends that they must give their daughter to him as a wife, or it would affect their eternal salvation, I would condemn that just as if it had happened in 1843. Nothing hypocritical about it.

Speaking of keeping score, the only way you can presume it to be a tu quoque fallacy is for you to commit the presentism fallacy, not to mention misconstrue what I have been saying. I wasn't speaking to hypocricy as much as I was speaking to a lack of sense of proportion, perspective, and proper context. I was also speaking to people's confusing matters of prudence with matters of morality.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Runtu]

Wade, that's the tu quoque fallacy, in case you're keeping score. Just because what you perceive as immorality goes uncondemned here (though some of us are probably about as concerned as you are in these matters), this does not mean we have no right to comment on the morality of Joseph Smith's behavior. If some middle-aged man today told his friends that they must give their daughter to him as a wife, or it would affect their eternal salvation, I would condemn that just as if it had happened in 1843. Nothing hypocritical about it.

Speaking of keeping score, the only way you can presume it to be a tu quoque fallacy is for you to commit the presentism fallacy, not to mention misconstrue what I have been saying. I wasn't speaking to hypocricy as much as I was speaking to a lack of sense of proportion, perspective, and proper context. I was also speaking to people's confusing matters of prudence with matters of morality.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-[/quote]

What is the proper proportion, perspective, and context for Joseph's sexual behavior? If I'm guilty of presentism, please show me where in Joseph Smith's day his behavior was acceptable.

[_wenglund]

I would condemn both. But for Joseph the issue is really multifaceted. Why did Joseph marry other women in the first place? If God really told him to do so then why was he so ungodly about how he did it? Why did he hide it from his wife? Why did he use his power to persuade those in a less powerful position to marry him? Why promise exaltation? Why marry other men's wives? Why tell a young woman or girl that she was his from the pre-existence? That is immoral in my opinion. Of course the idea of marrying a fourteen year old is repugnant now and then. Especially under the persuasive influence of a man that those he was trying to persuade viewed as THE PROPHET. Such a man has a fiduciary responsibility to take extra care not to abuse the power and influence he has over his followers. In the case of plural marriage it seems that that power was abused and thus the immorality of it seems highlighted. Like I said, if God commanded it it It was not rolled out in a very godly way.

Unlike you, I don't pretend to have the answers to those question, nor do I presume to sit in moral judgement absent sufficient fact and adequate perspective. Apparently, you and others think yourselves in a position to do so--which I find ironic given what I believe to be the immorality of character assasinations underway on this thread.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The facts are sufficient and the perspective is adequate to make an accurate judgment, Wade. We have Joseph's own words, the words of his trusted friends and associates, the words of the wife he lied to, and the words of the women themselves. Nothing else is needed in order to reach a justifiable conclusion.

Evidently, I have a much higher evidentiary threshold for rendering personal and moral judgements than you. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_guy sajer]

Wade, that's the tu quoque fallacy, in case you're keeping score. Just because what you perceive as immorality goes uncondemned here (though some of us are probably about as concerned as you are in these matters), this does not mean we have no right to comment on the morality of Joseph Smith's behavior. If some middle-aged man today told his friends that they must give their daughter to him as a wife, or it would affect their eternal salvation, I would condemn that just as if it had happened in 1843. Nothing hypocritical about it.

Speaking of keeping score, the only way you can presume it to be a tu quoque fallacy is for you to commit the presentism fallacy, not to mention misconstrue what I have been saying. I wasn't speaking to hypocricy as much as I was speaking to a lack of sense of proportion, perspective, and proper context. I was also speaking to people's confusing matters of prudence with matters of morality.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What is the proper proportion, perspective, and context for Joseph's sexual behavior? If I'm guilty of presentism, please show me where in Joseph Smith's day his behavior was acceptable.[/quote]

The point consistently overlooked in apologists' defense of serial adultery with pubescent girls is that the standard is not the baseline moral standards of the age, but the eternal moral standards of God. We rightly expect God's annointed to display higher standards of morality than the "typical" person of his or her age. Given that they receive truth and light from God, they should, to a large degree, be free of the prejudices of their times having been endowed with greater and divine understanding. Not necessarily in every way, but in many or most ways. So the question is not whether it was ok in 19th century America for a 30 +, married, authority figure to manipulate pubescent girls (or any woman) into sexual relations but whether this this is ok according to God's law and morality.

Why do apologists such as Wade consistely hold Joseph Smith and other Mormon prophets to such base moral standards? I guess there's the big difference, I (we) expect behavior and morals to be a signal that one is God's elect, whereas apologists appear to think the opposite. It is befuddling the low expectations Wade and others of his ilk have established for "the second only to Jesus."