Runtu wrote: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.
Your questions presuppose: 1) that there is sufficient information, for me to confidently and comfortably answer yes or no; 2) that I am sufficiently aware of the information for me to confidently and comfortably answer yes or no; 3) that the questions apply equally to each and every woman that Joseph was sealed to; and 4) that I have an interest in devoting any more attention to this issue than what I already have. Each of those presupposition are, to one degree or another, incorrect.
wenglund wrote:Your questions presuppose: 1) that there is sufficient information, for me to confidently and comfortably answer yes or no; 2) that I am sufficiently aware of the information for me to confidently and comfortably answer yes or no; 3) that the questions apply equally to each and every woman that Joseph was sealed to; and 4) that I have an interest in devoting any more attention to this issue than what I already have. Each of those presupposition are, to one degree or another, incorrect.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
1. Obviously, we disagree as to whether firsthand testimony constitutes information that might be evidentiary.
2. If this is true, you have no grounds for dismissing our judgments as being of lower evidentiary standards than yours.
3. I don't believe I claimed that. Of course, what I said describes perfectly the experience of several wives. Why is it necessary to apply that to all the wives?
4. Again, given your lack of interest and refusal to look at evidence, you're left with little grounds for criticizing our judgments on these matters.
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?
For a host of reasons, it is a matter of little moment and of no real personal concern.
If I'm guilty of presentism, please show me where in Joseph Smith's day his behavior was acceptable.
I did that in my earlier post, at least as far as I was want to go on the subject.
wenglund wrote:Your questions presuppose: 1) that there is sufficient information, for me to confidently and comfortably answer yes or no; 2) that I am sufficiently aware of the information for me to confidently and comfortably answer yes or no; 3) that the questions apply equally to each and every woman that Joseph was sealed to; and 4) that I have an interest in devoting any more attention to this issue than what I already have. Each of those presupposition are, to one degree or another, incorrect.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
1. Obviously, we disagree as to whether firsthand testimony constitutes information that might be evidentiary.
I am not questioning it as evidence. I am questioning whether it is conclusive or not.
2. If this is true, you have no grounds for dismissing our judgments as being of lower evidentiary standards than yours.
That would be true only if I have no knowledge whatsoever of the issue. To the extent that I do have knowledge, I have grounds to make such an assessment. But, your point is wewll taken
3. I don't believe I claimed that. Of course, what I said describes perfectly the experience of several wives. Why is it necessary to apply that to all the wives?
With the exception of the second question, your questions were unqualified, and so I reasonably interpreted them to apply to all the wives equally.
4. Again, given your lack of interest and refusal to look at evidence, you're left with little grounds for criticizing our judgments on these matters.
wenglund wrote:Your questions presuppose: 1) that there is sufficient information, for me to confidently and comfortably answer yes or no; 2) that I am sufficiently aware of the information for me to confidently and comfortably answer yes or no; 3) that the questions apply equally to each and every woman that Joseph was sealed to; and 4) that I have an interest in devoting any more attention to this issue than what I already have. Each of those presupposition are, to one degree or another, incorrect.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
1. Obviously, we disagree as to whether firsthand testimony constitutes information that might be evidentiary.
I am not questioning it as evidence. I am questioning whether it is conclusive or not.
2. If this is true, you have no grounds for dismissing our judgments as being of lower evidentiary standards than yours.
That would be true only if I have no knowledge whatsoever of the issue. To the extent that I do have knowledge, I have grounds to make such an assessment. But, your point is wewll taken
3. I don't believe I claimed that. Of course, what I said describes perfectly the experience of several wives. Why is it necessary to apply that to all the wives?
With the exception of the second question, your questions were unqualified, and so I reasonably interpreted them to apply to all the wives equally.
4. Again, given your lack of interest and refusal to look at evidence, you're left with little grounds for criticizing our judgments on these matters.
I agree.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
This is rich, where else other than on a board frequented by Mormon apologists (and perhaps a board frequented by members of the MBLA or the FLDS) can one find otherwise decent, moral, reasonable people constructing tortured defenses of a powerful man (married no less) who uses his position of power to manipulate/coerce minors subject to his authority into sexual relations?
Wade, do you have any sense how your position would play out in the world outside of Mormon apologetics?
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
guy sajer wrote:This is rich, where else other than on a board frequented by Mormon apologists (and perhaps a board frequented by members of the MBLA or the FLDS) can one find otherwise decent, moral, reasonable people constructing tortured defenses of a powerful man (married no less) who uses his position of power to manipulate/coerce minors subject to his authority into sexual relations?
Wade, do you have any sense how your position would play out in the world outside of Mormon apologetics?
I was just thinking about how for many years I thought the way Wade does about this: the evidence isn't conclusive, and besides, if God commanded it, so be it, etc. I think for me it said a lot more about my presuppositions than it did about the evidence, which is there for anyone to see. I knew the church was true, so whatever happened was within that constraint. It wasn't until I stopped trying to defend what I knew was indefensible that everything made sense.
For the record, I think reasonable people can disagree about the import of the evidence, but I'm surprised anyone would say that the evidence isn't clear and conclusive.
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.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
guy sajer wrote: This is rich, where else other than on a board frequented by Mormon apologists (and perhaps a board frequented by members of the MBLA or the FLDS) can one find otherwise decent, moral, reasonable people constructing tortured defenses of a powerful man (married no less) who uses his position of power to manipulate/coerce minors subject to his authority into sexual relations?
Wade, do you have any sense how your position would play out in the world outside of Mormon apologetics?
I have an idea, and I suspect it differs radically from yours. If so, why would I suppose that you (who ever you are, and whatever your training and background might be) would be in a better position to say than me, one way or the other?
guy sajer wrote:This is rich, where else other than on a board frequented by Mormon apologists (and perhaps a board frequented by members of the MBLA or the FLDS) can one find otherwise decent, moral, reasonable people constructing tortured defenses of a powerful man (married no less) who uses his position of power to manipulate/coerce minors subject to his authority into sexual relations?
Wade, do you have any sense how your position would play out in the world outside of Mormon apologetics?
I was just thinking about how for many years I thought the way Wade does about this: the evidence isn't conclusive, and besides, if God commanded it, so be it, etc. I think for me it said a lot more about my presuppositions than it did about the evidence, which is there for anyone to see. I knew the church was true, so whatever happened was within that constraint. It wasn't until I stopped trying to defend what I knew was indefensible that everything made sense.
For the record, I think reasonable people can disagree about the import of the evidence, but I'm surprised anyone would say that the evidence isn't clear and conclusive.
I think this says alot about your new-found presuppositions.