Polygamist Apologists blurring the Mormon line even more

[_collegeterrace]

That's a great clip. I love the serene setting and chirping birds, and the almost hypnotic tone of Madsen's voice.

He makes Hyrum's story sound so logical and normal, until you wonder what might have happened if it were a woman who had been married to two men instead of Hyrum being married to two women. If it were a woman with two husbands, Joseph's reply might well have been "It will be worked out in the spirit world." It's too bad that couldn't have been his response to Hyrum as well.

I think it's rather telling that you have to make up a scenario and assign totally hypothetical dialogue just to find something cynical to say. Does it pain you that much to just let things be?

Be nice, cinepro still has to goto church, pay tithing, wear funny undies, and do masonic things in the temple. He is trying to deal with it.

[_collegeterrace]

Those pesky FLDS just won't go away!

Check out this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmhjgaB2Hi8

He makes a great presentation, not that I agree with, but why is he wrong and the Woodruffites right?

How can you presume to claim "Mormonism is for Dummies" when you confuse Truman G. Madsen with an FLDS member? Also, the FLDS didn't split from the church with Woodruff. They sprang up about fifty years later as a result of a few members' sudden decision to go back to the way it was.

In all my days as a garden variety Mormon, I never heard of the guy. Then again, I never was much into defending polygamy or reading sappy novels about Joe and Emma.

.
.

[_maklelan]

In all my days as a garden variety Mormon, I never heard of the guy. Then again, I never was much into defending polygamy or reading sappy novels about Joe and Emma.

.
.

I see. And you feel your ideologically colored memories of your rather limited experience in Mormonism grants you a more lucid perspective than the rest of us? Is that why Mormonism is for dummies?

[_SatanWasSetUp]

It's funny watching the TBMs talk about Truman Madsen as if he is a household name. I have no idea who Truman Madsen is. Nobody I know knows who Truman Madsen is. Why the surprise when we see a guy on youtube and don't know his name. It's like listening to TBMs talk about Greg Olsen. I had no idea who Greg Olsen was until TBMs started hanging his art on their wall and talking about him on the internet. You need to understand that Mormon culture has a very limited reach and Mormon celebrities are pretty much only celebrities within the Mormon bubble.

[_maklelan]

It's funny watching the TBMs talk about Truman Madsen as if he is a household name. I have no idea who Truman Madsen is. Nobody I know knows who Truman Madsen is. Why the surprise when we see a guy on youtube and don't know his name. It's like listening to TBMs talk about Greg Olsen. I had no idea who Greg Olsen was until TBMs started hanging his art on their wall and talking about him on the internet. You need to understand that Mormon culture has a very limited reach and Mormon celebrities are pretty much only celebrities within the Mormon bubble.

Which is why one would expect someone from inside that bubble to know who he is. Anyone at all versed in Mormon history or in Joseph Smith's history knows who Truman Madsen is. My bigger problem is not with not knowing who he is, but with concluding, without any real evidence at all, that he must be FLDS (and that he is vindicating the FLDS perspective!) and asserting it in a post.

[_Gadianton]

Which is why one would expect someone from inside that bubble to know who he is.

Well, certainly they expect that everyone knows who they are. As is common knowledge by now, the folks at Yale were put off by the apologists' presentation of themselves as larger-than-life movie stars.

[_maklelan]

Which is why one would expect someone from inside that bubble to know who he is.

Well, certainly they expect that everyone knows who they are. As is common knowledge by now, the folks at Yale were put off by the apologists' presentation of themselves as larger-than-life movie stars.

I wouldn't know who he was if I were not Mormon, but someone claiming to have an emic perspective that grants him a more clear picture of the flaws of Mormonism should at least be aware of who its most well-known academic representatives are.

[_cinepro]

I think it's rather telling that you have to make up a scenario and assign totally hypothetical dialogue just to find something cynical to say. Does it pain you that much to just let things be?

What are you talking about? I was referring to Madsen's story about Hyrum being distressed that he was married to two women, and not knowing the status of their relationships in the afterlife. The scenario and dialogue were not made up (at least, they weren't made up by me...I don't know Madsen's source for this).

I guess I'm not familiar with the defenders of my faith that insist absolutely every polygamous relationship must be interpreted through that lens. Are you just reducing the facts until they fit conveniently into your little soundbites, or is there a whole field of LDS apologetics with which I'm not aware that has an "all or nothing" perspective on that? And how do Joseph's sealings to other men fit into your reduction? Do you have an "all or nothing" perspective going the other way?

While my perceptions on this issue are admittedly colored by my time spent at MAD, it is definitely the tack of many modern apologists (and would-be apologists) to insist that Joseph's polygamous marriages were platonic. It was to them that I am referring. Obviously, those that believe Joseph consummated some or all of his polygamous marriages wouldn't be surprised by Madsen's justifications.

Of course, Madsen and I were only referring to Joseph's polygamous marriages (you know, that ones that would show up on his family group sheet and were initiated by a marriage cermony). Those are obviously a different class of relationship than his sealings to other men. Unless you are arguing that they are all the same for both logistical, practical, and spiritual purposes. But considering the Church's stance on gay marriage, I don't know if you want to go there...

[_Sethbag]

I think it's rather telling that you have to make up a scenario and assign totally hypothetical dialogue just to find something cynical to say. Does it pain you that much to just let things be?

Don't you wonder how Truman Madsen would describe the fake sealing ceremony Joseph Smith staged with the two Lawrence sisters once he'd strong-armed Emma into accepting a marriage between Joseph and them, in order to cover up the fact that he'd already held secret sealing ceremonies with each of them, separately, months before?

Or don't you wonder how Madsen would explain the love letter Joseph Smith wrote to one of his fake brides, explaining to her that he'd try to meet her at such and such a place, but that if Emma comes, they cannot meet, and Emma must not find out about them at any cost, and that she should destroy the message as soon as she's read it?

How do you suppose Madsen would explain away the Martha Brotherton incident?

Truman Madsen is not only Joseph's hagiographer, in cases like this he's also the slick defense attorney who is able to stand up before the jury and make his client out to be the most innocent thing since a new-born babe, when the clean-shaven guy in the nice suit behind the defendant's desk actually was an abusive, manipulative, deceptive, selfish bastard.

[_cinepro]

It's funny watching the TBMs talk about Truman Madsen as if he is a household name. I have no idea who Truman Madsen is.

Madsen is identified in both the title and description of the video. 2 seconds on Wikipedia gets you this:

Truman Grant Madsen (born 1926) is a retired professor of religion and philosophy at Brigham Young University. He is a prolific author, a recognized authority on Joseph Smith, and a popular lecturer among Latter-day Saints. At one point Madsen was an instructor at the LDS Institute of Religion in Berkeley, California.

It's fine for someone to not know who Truman Madsen is, but it's irresponsible to accuse him of being FLDS without doing even a cursory investigation.