DCP Revises the Mopologetic Canon

[_Runtu]

This is truly heart-wrenching.

You critics are such Puritans. Get a life.

Seriously, this is heart-wrenching indeed. And it's not the only case of its kind. The last straw for me with Mormonism was when I realized how much I had rationalized this kind of stuff. I just couldn't do it anymore.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Now, bearing the burden of her own eternal salvation and that of her family, and with a deadline approaching, Lucy prayed more fervently for an answer. She couldn’t sleep the entire night. Just before dawn, and Joseph’s deadline, she “received a powerful and irristable testimony of the truth of the mariage covenant called 'Celestial or plural mariage'” and "I afterwards married Joseph as a plural wife and lived and cohabitated with him as such." Lucy married Joseph on May 1, 1843. At the time, Emma was in St. Louis buying supplies for the Nauvoo hotel. Lucy remembers, “Emma Smith was not present and she did not consent to the marriage; she did not know anything about it at all.” Of the relationship, Lucy said, “It was not a love matter, so to speak, in our affairs, -at least on my part it was not, but simply the giving up of myself as a sacrifice to establish that grand and glorious principle that God had revealed to the world.”

I want to type something - and I can't formulate a thought that would appropriately reflect the visceral response I had to reading the above.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

Wow. In defense of DCP, I don't know if DCP himself ever argued that Joseph's polygamous marriages were platonic, but it is a very, very common argument (which strikes me as odd since nobody cares that Brigham Young screwed all his wives). This argument most typically comes from TBM women, and I see it on-line a lot, but I'm not sure if it's an "official" apologetic excuse from the apologist handbook. But, that being said, if the apologists abandon this theory and admit that Joseph's marriages included sex, it will be a huge blow to the testimonies of many sweet sisters.

The difference being that Brigham didn't lie about it, at least not once they got to Utah Territory.

But if the issue was about lying, TBMs should still be troubled with Joseph Smith. Joseph lied about polygamy. He never lied about sex, becase he denied plural marriage in the first place, there was no need to deny sex. Brigham came out and publically admitted to polygamy. TBMs accept that Joseph also practiced polygamy and lied about it. The lying part is never really an issue because he was just protecting the church from persecution, but TBMs have a hard time swallowing the idea of Joseph having sex. This is what I don't understand. TBMs accept he was polygamous, but don't like the idea of him having sex. Huh? Why the double standard? Why can Briggie have sex but Joseph can't. It makes no sense.

[_Mister Scratch]

One question: I thought the thread was about shifting of positions on the part of apologists, but as of yet I haven't seen any shifting; does the Quinn passage specifically name Mormon apologists who claim all of Joseph Smith's plural marriages were platonic?

LoP: I thought you said that you read the Quinn passage? Have you not yet done so? Quinn lists at least half a dozen apologists who have dismissed or downplayed the sexual nature of Joseph Smith's plural marriages.

Now we're talking about dismissing and downplaying? I don't own the Quinn book. I haven't read the Quinn book, my smart-assery notwithstanding (disregard my 'done and done.)

Oh, so you lied to me then?

Could you oblige me and cite the references Quinn gives to apologists who affirm all of the marriages were platonic? That was, if I understand correctly, the original assertion.

A) I see no reason why I should "oblige" an unapologetic liar, and B) No; the "original assertion" was that DCP is altering the Standard Mopologetic Position, which tends to downplay the sexual nature of Joseph Smith and other Church leaders' polygamous relationships. But why bother repeating this, since you will probably just craft some lie in order to dismiss it?

[_LifeOnaPlate]

One question: I thought the thread was about shifting of positions on the part of apologists, but as of yet I haven't seen any shifting; does the Quinn passage specifically name Mormon apologists who claim all of Joseph Smith's plural marriages were platonic?

LoP: I thought you said that you read the Quinn passage? Have you not yet done so? Quinn lists at least half a dozen apologists who have dismissed or downplayed the sexual nature of Joseph Smith's plural marriages.

Now we're talking about dismissing and downplaying? I don't own the Quinn book. I haven't read the Quinn book, my smart-assery notwithstanding (disregard my 'done and done.)

Oh, so you lied to me then?

To be honest, my initial response was typed in haste, I apologize. If you were to investigate further, you would find that after reading it once posted, I edited that statement to request a quote reflecting that I had not read the passage. Once the edit was complete [thank you, blazing fast MormonDiscussions servers!] I noticed you had already responded, and so re-edited it back to it's original, as is reflected by the edit time stamp, and requested you post a quote since I don't currently own that book.

A) I see no reason why I should "oblige" an unapologetic liar, and B) No; the "original assertion" was that DCP is altering the Standard Mopologetic Position, which tends to downplay the sexual nature of Joseph Smith and other Church leaders' polygamous relationships. But why bother repeating this, since you will probably just craft some lie in order to dismiss it?

I understood the original assertion by scottie (who has since backtracked) was that Mormon apologists have all asserted that Joseph Smith only ever consummated his marriage with Emma, and none others. Now we are talking about "attempts to downplay." That's fine, I feel the goal posts were shifted, but am willing to continue the game if you'd kindly show me how the Quinn quote to which I was referred proves that all (or, hey, even most) Mormon apologists claim Joseph never consummated plural marriages.

You can call me an unapologetic liar, that's fine, but until you actually provide the quote I'm afraid the ball is still in your court.

[_Mister Scratch]

A) I see no reason why I should "oblige" an unapologetic liar, and B) No; the "original assertion" was that DCP is altering the Standard Mopologetic Position, which tends to downplay the sexual nature of Joseph Smith and other Church leaders' polygamous relationships. But why bother repeating this, since you will probably just craft some lie in order to dismiss it?

I understood the original assertion by scottie (who has since backtracked) was that Mormon apologists have all asserted that Joseph Smith only ever consummated his marriage with Emma, and none others.

CFR. Let's see the post, LoP. I didn't quote Scottie; I quoted DCP. That's what this thread was about: How DCP is revising the typical Mopologetic position.

Now we are talking about "attempts to downplay."

That's all *I* was ever talking about. Or can you provide actual evidence otherwise?

That's fine, I feel the goal posts were shifted,

I bet you do, since you were the one shifting them.

but am willing to continue the game if you'd kindly show me how the Quinn quote to which I was referred proves that all (or, hey, even most) Mormon apologists claim Joseph never consummated plural marriages.

Go ahead and provide the post of mine in which I was claiming this, LoP.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

I was discussing along the lines of scottie's initial assertion on MAD that all Mormon apologists deny any sexual relations between Joseph Smith and plural wives. Sorry for the confusion. It appears, rather than shifted goalposts, we may have been playing on different fields, and seeing as how this is your thread, the trouble of interpretation is mine. Let's clarify, then.

So... Is this therefore an admission (finally!) from The Good Professor that Joseph Smith, in fact, did have sexual relations with his plural wives??? I'd really like to know! Because if so, this is really quite a stunning admission/concession. It is a total upheaval of a part of the Mopologetic canon, in fact!

Ok, so we here establish that you believe Mormon apologists don't affirm that Joseph Smith had more-than-platonic relationship with plural wives. You say it is a total upheaval of part of the Mopologetic canon. You then listed a source to demonstrate said upheaval:

Check out pp. 183-187 in Quinn's second Mormon Hierarchy book. This passage is devoted to debunking the many Mopologetic arguments against the polygamous sex of Joseph Smith, BY, and others. Quinn provides endnotes for at least a dozen sources.

I don't have Quinn's 2nd Mormon Hierarchy book, do you have the book? If so, is it possible to provide the words to which you refer? Maybe scan them or something? I would appreciate it.

[_Mister Scratch]

Ok, so we here establish that you believe Mormon apologists don't affirm that Joseph Smith had more-than-platonic relationship with plural wives. You say it is a total upheaval of part of the Mopologetic canon. You then listed a source to demonstrate said upheaval:

Check out pp. 183-187 in Quinn's second Mormon Hierarchy book. This passage is devoted to debunking the many Mopologetic arguments against the polygamous sex of Joseph Smith, BY, and others. Quinn provides endnotes for at least a dozen sources.

I don't have Quinn's 2nd Mormon Hierarchy book, do you have the book? If so, is it possible to provide the words to which you refer? Maybe scan them or something? I would appreciate it.

Well, since you asked so nicely...

First of all, you're right: I *do* believe that one of the central goals of Mopologetics in this regard is to downplay the notion that Joseph Smith had sex with any of this wives. There is ample evidence for this in the archives of the FAIR/MADboard, as you no doubt know.

As to the Quinn, he begins at the bottom of page 183 by stating, "Some writers have claimed that the ordinance of sealing a living man and woman did not always involve the physical union of marriage but sometimes solemnized a spiritual union that had reference only to life after death." He provides an endnote referring us to works by John A. Widstoe and Kimball Young. Later on the same page, he writes: "...there are clear problems of evidence is claiming that a relationship remained celibate for a man and woman who received an LDS sealing ordinance as living persons." Quinn goes on to discuss why attempts to shoo away polygamous sex are misguided.

There are at least a couple of places in the pages I cited where Quinn mentions or refers to "apologist" arguments, such as on pg. 185: "The 'widows and elderly spinsters' argument of celibacy often expressed by Mormon apologists applies to only five or six of Young's scores of wives", or pg. 187: "In my view, the existing evidence does not support writers who assume that Young had a celibate, 'eternity only' [or "platonic"] relationship with these dozens of wives who bore him no children....Modern embarrassment about pioneer polygamy has created an 'eternity only' [or "platonic"] definition that was absent in the original records of these marriage ceremonies between living persons."

Quinn's notes for these pages are as copious as one might expect, and he lists writers who have pushed for the "eternity only" interpretation for the majority of Joseph Smith and BY's wives, including Dean Jessee.

[_LifeOnaPlate]

Thanks for the information. I whole-heartedly believe there were some plural marriages of both Smith and Young that were platonic. I don't believe all were, however, and perhaps not even a majority.

[_Runtu]

Thanks for the information. I whole-heartedly believe there were some plural marriages of both Smith and Young that were platonic. I don't believe all were, however, and perhaps not even a majority.

What I find interesting is that there are only a few of the plural marriages that are considered platonic, and these are all older women, with the exception of Helen Kimball. But reading Compton, you realize that these older women were used to recruit younger wives and assuage their fears and concerns. And there are only two reasons people suspect Helen's marriage was platonic: she was 14, and there's no definite proof of sexuality.

But for the majority (and it's not even close) there is evidence of sexual relations.