The Trolley Problem--Nemo the Mormon is back

[sock puppet]

That’s fine, MG. Your choice, of course. I would also expect any historian to investigate the matter thoroughly before opining on it. That said, I don’t blame any average person who makes a negative moral judgment of Joseph Smith’s sexual relationships outside of his marriage to Emma. I think anyone is justified in calling that wrong. No amount of explaining or examining of evidence really changes the basic moral issue. Either one upholds fidelity in monogamy as the moral standard, or one does not. You do not.

I would agree that the "average person" might respond as you say. At first blush one might have some real concerns. Years ago when I was looking at Nauvoo polygamy and the influence of John C. Bennett and others on the hearts and minds of others, including future historians/critics, I started to see that there was more to it than what the "average person" might know.

I think that Don Bradley is one of the best sources to look to. Years ago I briefly talked to him at a FAIR conference soon after he had come back into the church. Cool guy.

Regards,
MG

And how did Joseph Smith take care of his 2nd - 34th wives? Homes for each of them? Living stipends? What evidence is there that he treated them any differently than would an adulterer, skulking around in secrecy?

[I Have Questions]

Don is relying on second hand and third hand, non contemporary sources. The one thing Don does admit is that even if one were to claim it as a marriage, it was illegal. Could Don add any more caveats? He’s saying it wasn’t like a marriage and that nobody knows when or where it happened. If there’s no evidence of when, where, how, and with whom present, a thing happened, on what basis can you say a thing happened? Don is just picking a conclusion that he wants to believe on no other basis than it’s what he wants to believe. This is Don admitting he is making a simple, big, assumption, which goes like this - “Joseph had an affair with Fanny, it happened in and around the time illegal polygamous couplings were happening, therefore I am going to assume it was a marriage even though there is no evidence of a marriage ever taking place.”

Thanks, IHQ - I have nothing to add to your comments other than to note that, if MG thought this video helped his case, I must confess that I don't see how.

I don’t see what MG was thinking the video would show. It confirms the coupling was extra marital and adulterous in the eyes of the law if the land at that time. Don confirms the critics position as accurate, even if he does go on to rationalising it all as “okay” as far as he’s concerned. Don offers up no objective evidence, but confirms there isn’t any. When Joseph married Emma here is what he promised to do in the eyes of the law of the land, and in the eyes of God…

In the early 19th century, weddings were primarily held in churches, and the vows exchanged followed a traditional format dictated by religious doctrines. Couples would often recite the same set of vows with minimal personalization. These vows emphasized obedience, fidelity, and the sanctity of marriage.

How did Joseph’s performance as an husband after taking those vows stack up against what he promised Emma? That’s right, Joseph broke all those vows. Dozens and dozens of times. Not only that, he coerced other married women to break their own solemn marriage vows. There’s no getting around it, Joseph was both a prolifically unfaithful husband, and a law breaker.

[Marcus]

Is there a transcript? I find videos and podcasts without transcripts difficult to extract relevant details from.

I cannot say that I'm very much interested in anyone 'in the know' opining on what was right in the eyes of God and His church. That is why I keep asking about records and legality, and why I introduced the hypothetical about the gentleman I met in Ohio.

I could say I'm disappointed, but that would not be quite accurate. As I said to IHQ, if you thought this video helped your case, I must confess that I don't see how. In fact, as pointed out by others who have commented since my last comment, it confirms the facts: Joseph's relationship was a case of adultery, plain & simple, since (even assuming that a "marriage" ceremony took place) polygamy was illegal.

Don makes a big deal of the possible misinterpretations of the word "affair", but in the end it doesn't really matter whether Oliver said "affair", or "scrape", or used some other noun. The important part is that, whether he was a witness, or had the "thing" reported to him, Oliver's description of the affair as "dirty and nasty" still seems appropriate.

Are you now ready to answer plainly my questions about the legality of Joseph's "marriage" to Fanny?

Wow, that was quite the eye opener hearing about 'evidence' (or, more accurately, the lack thereof) in the video mg recommended.

And I notice you've still gotten no response from MG to your final question, even though he's written 5 posts since you asked it.

[sock puppet]

There is certainly not much grist for the defenders' mill that Joseph Smith allegedly "married" Fanny Alger before their conjugal relations in the barn. (What a romantic, that Joseph Smith, treating his new bride to a roll in the hay literally on their "wedding" night.)

Don puts the Fanny Alger barn incident soon before August 1836 because it was then that Joseph Smith arranged to have her taken to Missouri. Thus, it was after the 'sealing' keys had been given to Joseph Smith by heavenly beings on April 30, 1836. It does not follow that it had to be soon before August 1836. It could have been any amount of time that passed before barn incident was leaking out, well before April 30, 1836. Also, Don conflates sealing power with polygamy, even though Joseph Smith describes an angel with a sword commanding polygamy, not the same event described taking place on April 30, 1836.

Don takes refuge for the notion of Joseph Smith having 'married' Fanny Alger in the fact that the introduction to the Statement of Marriage of 1835 explains that the Statement is in refutation of rumors of fornication and polygamy among the Mormons. So, Don's argument goes, there must have been polygamy before that. Hmm. Then is he saying that the rumors of fornication and polygamy among the Mormons were true? The fornication as well as the polygamy? By Don's logic, the rumors prove too that there was fornication among the Mormons that was of concern to others.

Given that the Book of Mormon had been published in 1830 and includes

“Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things”

it quite simply makes sense that 5 years later, there could be rumors of polygamy being something espoused by the Mormons.

There was also pointed to the fact that of 9 charges for excommunication in April 1838, Oliver Cowdery only answered three and was 'convicted' on the other 6. Of those other 6, one was that Cowdery had dubbed the barn incident a "dirty, nasty, filthy scrape". No details in the written account (or 'minutes') of the high council trial, but simply that Joseph Smith testified about "the girl business." Don takes the outcome of excommunication as evidence that Joseph Smith must have denied the barn incident was adultery, perhaps explaining it as polygamy and the High Council bought Joseph Smith's explanation. No room is given for the fact that the High Council was, in church hierarchy, a subordinate body to Joseph Smith and that such inferior church bodies typically (though not always) buckled to whatever Joseph Smith wanted. And the phraseology, "the girl business" is more damning towards adultery than helpful to defenders trying to cast the barn incident as a 'marriage.'

[Morley]

I don’t see what MG was thinking the video would show.

MG's google search or AI bot pointed him to the video. It's doubtful that he took the time to watch it or would necessarily understand its import, if he did. MG often links to books, articles, people, and videos that come up in his searches--things he's neither familiar with, nor has has taken the time to peruse, himself. As he says about his screen-filling AI responses, this saves him a lot of time and effort. No need for him to get too deep into the weeds if someone else already has done the work for him. MG doesn't need to intellectually understand, because he already has the sure knowledge that a testimony provides. So-called 'facts' are kind of peripheral.

[Rivendale]

I don’t see what MG was thinking the video would show.

MG's google search or A.I. bot pointed him to the video. It's doubtful that he took the time to watch it or would necessarily understand its import, if he did. MG often links to books, articles, people, and videos that come up in his searches--things he's neither familiar with, nor has has taken the time to peruse, himself. As he says about his screen-filling A.I. responses, this saves him a lot of time and effort. No need for him to get too deep into the weeds if someone else already has done the work for him. MG doesn't need to intellectually understand, because he already has the sure knowledge that a testimony provides. So-called 'facts' are kind of peripheral.

Exactly. His last comment dealt with looking into Don Bradley's research and his earlier searching regarding Nauvoo polygamy. The only information he relayed was that he would agree on first blush that it looks bad until he looked closely into John Bennet's involvement then somehow it all became clear. And that was the end. No synopsis of what was clear. No clarification regarding a marriage to a 14 year old is somehow justified.

[Moksha]

How did Joseph’s performance as a husband after taking those vows stack up against what he promised Emma? That’s right, Joseph broke all those vows. Dozens and dozens of times. Not only that, he coerced other married women to break their solemn marriage vows. There’s no getting around it, Joseph was both a prolifically unfaithful husband and a lawbreaker.

The ways of the Mormon God are mysterious. He desired Joseph to have joy at the expense of societal and religious norms.

[Kishkumen]

I would agree that the "average person" might respond as you say. At first blush one might have some real concerns. Years ago when I was looking at Nauvoo polygamy and the influence of John C. Bennett and others on the hearts and minds of others, including future historians/critics, I started to see that there was more to it than what the "average person" might know.

I think that Don Bradley is one of the best sources to look to. Years ago I briefly talked to him at a FAIR conference soon after he had come back into the church. Cool guy.

Regards,
MG

Yes, obviously I know Don Bradley is a great scholar on this and other Mormon history topics. Understanding the history is not the same as embracing the morality. We can have human understanding of others’ choices without agreeing with their choices.

[malkie]

I would agree that the "average person" might respond as you say. At first blush one might have some real concerns. Years ago when I was looking at Nauvoo polygamy and the influence of John C. Bennett and others on the hearts and minds of others, including future historians/critics, I started to see that there was more to it than what the "average person" might know.

I think that Don Bradley is one of the best sources to look to. Years ago I briefly talked to him at a FAIR conference soon after he had come back into the church. Cool guy.

Regards,
MG

Yes, obviously I know Don Bradley is a great scholar on this and other Mormon history topics. Understanding the history is not the same as embracing the morality. We can have human understanding of others’ choices without agreeing with their choices.

I appreciate your confirmation - scholar to scholar - about Don.

As far as I know there were never any doubts on either side of the critic/faithful divide about his scholarship at any point in his faith journey

[Kishkumen]

I appreciate your confirmation - scholar to scholar - about Don.

As far as I know there were never any doubts on either side of the critic/faithful divide about his scholarship at any point in his faith journey

True. I am unaware of doubts raised here about Don’s scholarly acumen. In fact, when people elsewhere have voiced criticisms, critics who are inferior to Don in scholarship, I defended and will defend him because he knows the subject much, much better than most of them ever will.

And yet, that does not mean we are obliged to condone Joseph Smith’s moral choices. It simply is the case that people differ on points of moral reasoning. When it comes to the superiority of monogamy, I am stubborn. I will choose monogamy over other arrangements any time. That does not mean I have a beef with those who disagree.