Polygamist Apologists blurring the Mormon line even more

[_Sethbag]

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.

Sudden decision to go back to the way it was? It was my understanding that the FLDS' founders never actually stopped practicing things the way they were, and that this not stopping was what lead to their excommunication from the LDS church and subsequent formation of their original separate organization? I don't claim to be an FLDS expert or anything like that, but can you back up the idea that the FLDS founders actually aquiesced to the polygamy ban after the Manifesto for a time, and then "suddenly" decided to go back to a pre-Manifesto practice?

[_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?

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.

The weird/sad thing is that Madsen definitely knows all this stuff (and more), but he's made the choice to present the whitewashed-with-extra-marshmallow version of Joseph's story.

When you read his books (or listen to his tapes, which were very popular on my mission), you just get this awesome feeling that if Superman and Mother Theresa had a baby, it would have been Joseph (obviously that couldn't happen because she was a nun, but hypothetically speaking).

[_maklelan]

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).

So you're saying this was not a hypothetical situation you just composed:

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.

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.

Again, are you saying they insist all of them were platonic? My experience has shown the only marriages that can be shown in most cases to have been exclusively platonic were the polyandrous marriages, and I've certainly never heard anyone argue that all of them were. If you're just being vague so the facts don't conflict with your statements then I don't think you really have the right to jab at apologists about their methodologies. If you really are insisting apologists aver that every last polygamous marriage was entirely platonic, I'd like to see a reference, because that hasn't been my experience.

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.

So you totally discount the idea that some marriages were performed solely for inclusion on Smith's family group sheet, and that some were to take effect only after this life?

Unless you are arguing that they are all the same for both logistical, practical, and spiritual purposes.

I think I've made it clear that that's a conclusion I definitely don't agree with.

But considering the Church's stance on gay marriage, I don't know if you want to go there...

Oh, no! Not tenuous associations with controversial topics! My convictions are ruined!

[_Ray A]

When you read his books (or listen to his tapes, which were very popular on my mission), you just get this awesome feeling that if Superman and Mother Theresa had a baby, it would have been Joseph.... .

I think I just woke up the neighbours.

[_maklelan]

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?

Not particularly. This doesn't really address the discussion, you're just using the Madsen springboard to introduce what you feel to be more damning evidence for an entirely different conclusion. If you have concerns about that then start a thread.

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.

If only Madsen had the totally unbiased insight that you obviously do. He might have made something of himself.

[_Sethbag]

When you read his books (or listen to his tapes, which were very popular on my mission), you just get this awesome feeling that if Superman and Mother Theresa had a baby, it would have been Joseph (obviously that couldn't happen because she was a nun, but hypothetically speaking).

I know exactly what you're talking about. My family bought a set of Joseph Smith tapes by Truman Madsen when I was a teenager, and I really ate it all up. Joseph Smith wasn't just the son of Superman and Mother Teresa, it was more like there really was this secret lineage of Jesus' descendants, and Joseph Smith was the heir of that lineage.

What really irks me about guys like Madsen and Bushman is that these guys ought to know better. They know all of the crap that Joseph Smith did. And they choose to reinterpret it in ways that neuter the bad things, and emphasize the good.

So, Madsen portrays Joseph's feigned unwillingness and hesitance in practicing polygamy. What a complete crock of crap. "Yes, it's true, an Angel of the Lord came down and told me that if I didn't take you as my 23rd secret wife, he was going to kill me." What's actually good evidence of Joseph's emotional manipulation of women is twisted to serve as evidence that Joseph really didn't want to do what he did. These guys ought to know better, but they've chosen Joseph, and they're sticking with him, no matter what.

Truman G. Madsen, Joseph Smith's hagiographer and sycophant.

[_Sethbag]

If only Madsen had the totally unbiased insight that you obviously do. He might have made something of himself.

If only Madsen had had a little more intellectual integrity, he might not have made quite so much of himself as he did. As it is, Madsen is a moderately-sized fish in a very small pond. Being Joseph's most unabashed hagiographer is hardly something I would ever aspire to. He can have it.

[_maklelan]

Sudden decision to go back to the way it was? It was my understanding that the FLDS' founders never actually stopped practicing things the way they were, and that this not stopping was what lead to their excommunication from the LDS church and subsequent formation of their original separate organization? I don't claim to be an FLDS expert or anything like that, but can you back up the idea that the FLDS founders actually aquiesced to the polygamy ban after the Manifesto for a time, and then "suddenly" decided to go back to a pre-Manifesto practice?

Many of them tried to get authorization for polygamous marriages, but were denied. Lorin C. Woolley, in the 1920's declared that the real authority to authorize polygamous marriages had been safeguarded by non-members known as the Council of Friends. He claimed the council had been set apart by church leadership in 1886 to perpetuate the proper authority in exile from the church, and that church leadership was perfectly aware of them. He was excommunicated in 1924 because he publicly claimed that the church had been authorizing polygamous marriages. I'm sure there are some who maintained plural marriages and found a safe haven in the FLDS sects.

[_maklelan]

If only Madsen had had a little more intellectual integrity, he might not have made quite so much of himself as he did. As it is, Madsen is a moderately-sized fish in a very small pond. Being Joseph's most unabashed hagiographer is hardly something I would ever aspire to. He can have it.

And are we currently swimming around in your pond?

[Anonymous]

If only Madsen had had a little more intellectual integrity, he might not have made quite so much of himself as he did. As it is, Madsen is a moderately-sized fish in a very small pond. Being Joseph's most unabashed hagiographer is hardly something I would ever aspire to. He can have it.

And are we currently swimming around in your pond?

I'm nobody, and I'm fine with that. I'm a minnow in a puddle on the street. And your point is?

Madsen's still a snake oil salesman, peddling a manipulative, deceptive, selfish bastard as the metaphorical offspring of Superman and Mother Teresa, to a fawning crowd who eagerly lap it up. Just the way you came into this thread making sure we all knew it was not just Madsen, or even Truman Madsen, but Truman G. Madsen, demonstrates my point.