Ex'd for defending Joseph?

[Limnor]

You’re right, it’s weak as a punchline. It just happens to be an effective explanation, at least for the foundational history. There really isn’t a better punchline, probably because it’s not funny to begin with. What’s weird is everything kept working the same way after the polygamy stopped. Same authority, same retroactive revelations, same expectations of alignment, just fewer wives.

Apparently you also are unwilling/unable to look at the full historical arc. You are hung up on partial history and the stuff that came out of Nauvoo after John C. Bennett and Co. had their heyday in the writings of the time that then became 'history'. Accepted history among the critics.

You've got to go back to the beginning of the time line. Or...maybe you don't?

Regards,
MG

Actually, I don’t need to keep going back and forth on this, because the point is pretty stable. I’m going to say something like “there’s no record from 1823 that mentions sealing keys, the first documented claim doesn’t appear until 1836, and it’s tied to Elijah, not Moroni.” Then I’ll probably add that “yes, Jacob contains an argument about polygamy, but there’s still no evidence of sealing keys or authorized plural marriage at that stage.” And, I’d add a reattack on “behavior” that you’ll ignore.

And I assume your reply will be something along the lines of “you’re isolating sources, ignoring the arc, reading with modern eyes, or failing to appreciate how later understanding sheds light on earlier events.” Which is fine—but at that point we’re no longer talking about evidence appearing earlier in the record, we’re talking about retroactive interpretation.

So I’d rather skip it. I regret posting the satirical take earlier, mostly because it encouraged a response rather than clarifying the point.

Edited to add: I’d probably also note that Emma’s distress over early extramarital relationships occurs before any documented sealing authority appears in the record, which is hard to reconcile if the practice was already understood as divinely authorized at the time.

[huckelberry]

You’re right, it’s weak as a punchline. It just happens to be an effective explanation, at least for the foundational history. There really isn’t a better punchline, probably because it’s not funny to begin with. What’s weird is everything kept working the same way after the polygamy stopped. Same authority, same retroactive revelations, same expectations of alignment, just fewer wives.

Apparently you also are unwilling/unable to look at the full historical arc. You are hung up on partial history and the stuff that came out of Nauvoo after John C. Bennett and Co. had their heyday in the writings of the time that then became 'history'. Accepted history among the critics.

You've got to go back to the beginning of the time line. Or...maybe you don't?

Regards,
MG

beginning time line? So 50 thousand years ago many human groups had polygamous marriages, I suppose. Well there is the romantic story of Jacob chasing a couple of wives. Actually one can look about the world and find polygamous groups in Africa middle east Asia etc. It has all sorts of time.

I am not sure what part of that arc has to do with SLC marriage systems or why I should not be repelled by it.

[I Have Questions]

Actually, I don’t need to keep going back and forth on this, because the point is pretty stable. I’m going to say something like “there’s no record from 1823 that mentions sealing keys, the first documented claim doesn’t appear until 1836, and it’s tied to Elijah, not Moroni.” Then I’ll probably add that “yes, Jacob contains an argument about polygamy, but there’s still no evidence of sealing keys or authorized plural marriage at that stage.” And, I’d add a reattack on “behavior” that you’ll ignore.

And I assume your reply will be something along the lines of “you’re isolating sources, ignoring the arc, reading with modern eyes, or failing to appreciate how later understanding sheds light on earlier events.” Which is fine—but at that point we’re no longer talking about evidence appearing earlier in the record, we’re talking about retroactive interpretation.

So I’d rather skip it. I regret posting the satirical take earlier, mostly because it encouraged a response rather than clarifying the point.

Edited to add: I’d probably also note that Emma’s distress over early extramarital relationships occurs before any documented sealing authority appears in the record, which is hard to reconcile if the practice was already understood as divinely authorized at the time.

Perhaps it’s also worth noting that all of Joseph’s plural “marriages” were illegal, and therefore they were simply adulterous relationships. According to section 132, plural marriage was only authorised to “raise up seed” (produce children), so how many children did Joseph produce outside of his relationship with Emma?

Joseph coupled with other female children, adult women, and other men’s wives for either sexual, or status reasons. At least, that’s what the objective evidence shows.

[Physics Guy]

No, the historical arc isn't important. Discovering Smith's many affairs and "plural marriages" is exactly like discovering his secret bank account. It speaks for itself. He was a scammer looking for status to get sex. The end.

Calling that verdict "simplistic" and talking about historical arcs is just squeezing your eyes up tight against the midday sun and saying that it's still night.

No, it's not. That's the sun. Open your eyes.

[I Have Questions]

No, the historical arc isn't important. Discovering Smith's many affairs and "plural marriages" is exactly like discovering his secret bank account. It speaks for itself. He was a scammer looking for status to get sex. The end.

Calling that verdict "simplistic" and talking about historical arcs is just squeezing your eyes up tight against the midday sun and saying that it's still night.

No, it's not. That's the sun. Open your eyes.

Unfortunately you’re conversing with a closed-minded denialist. There isn’t anything you can present that will sway MG one iota away from his fixed positions. However, if the Church were to, say, change its position on anything, even if that change was a complete U-Turn on something, MG would automatically and instantly side with the new position. And then insist he always did. He’s basically Mormon silly putty that will adopt any shape required.

The problem isn’t the veracity of the evidence, it’s the source of that evidence. When South Park showed the episode with Joseph looking at a rock in a hat, Mormon’s were outraged at the misrepresentation. But once the Church had confessed that Joseph had indeed used a rock in a hat, suddenly that was the way Joseph had always done it and the Church hadn’t hidden anything. It’s a bizarre dynamic to observe. Handily for the Church, members like MG will even gaslight themselves.

Take same sex marriage. Today MG is against same sex marriage because it isn’t God’s pattern for marriage. When the Church changes its stance MG will say you need to consider the arc of marriage to see that same sex marriage was always part of the plan and within the context of Church teachings. He is utterly without personal moral fibre. He will bend whichever way the Mormon wind blows, even if it’s the opposite direction from yesterday.

At least that’s his board persona. In real life he might be a mature minded, rational, reasonable, non sexist, honest thinker. But on here he isn’t that.

[Physics Guy]

Yeah, I'm not trying to convince MG of anything about Smith or Mormonism. I'm trying to convey the bad news about how non-Mormons see Smith and Mormonism, to let him and any other Mormon apologists direct their efforts better.

The nuance card is worthless. Long paragraphs about historical arcs, and moralising against black-and-white thinking, only make Mormonism look even worse and more ridiculous, like the person with their eyes squeezed shut at noon, claiming that it is night, and responding to requests to just open their eyes with a sermon about not being simplistic.

Thinking that Mormon polygamy can be brushed off with fussy details and airy principles is a disconnect with reality. It only shows how much Mormons don't get it. And if they can be so blind and deaf about something like this, then it's obviously not worth taking them seriously about anything.

The only hope to salvage anything credible in Mormonism, now that we know how Smith lived, is to admit loudly and clearly, as the very first thing, that Smith was a bad guy and most of his teaching was self-serving scam. Only that much honesty and realism will earn any further attention. After that, there might be a chance to say that through that badly flawed channel God somehow did reveal some true things. Then you'd have to say what those things were, and they had better be good.

Personally, I don't see how to pull off this approach. Once you take out of Mormonism all the priesthood keys and ordinances stuff that is just about giving Smith and his Mormon leader successors all their status and power, I don't see anything left except fake history and 19th-century New Age metaphysics, which are worthless, plus generic Protestant Christianity that can be had without Mormon baggage. But maybe an aware yet sincere Mormon could make a case that I couldn't.

I repeat, though, that any more ambitious Mormon defence than that, trying to make out that polygamy was somehow remotely acceptable, is as hopeless and ridiculous as any oblivious babbling from the person clenching their eyes in the sun. If you even think there is anything that you could possibly say, then all you are saying is that you don't get it.

I have much more respect for Hyatt. She's just misinformed about Smith. At worst, she may be deliberately closing her eyes to avoid seeing the truth about Smith. At least she's not deliberately closing her eyes to the truth about what a sex life like Smith's actually was would imply for his church.

[I Have Questions]

Yeah, I'm not trying to convince MG of anything about Smith or Mormonism. I'm trying to convey the bad news about how non-Mormons see Smith and Mormonism, to let him and any other Mormon apologists direct their efforts better.

The nuance card is worthless. Long paragraphs about historical arcs, and moralising against black-and-white thinking, only make Mormonism look even worse and more ridiculous, like the person with their eyes squeezed shut at noon, claiming that it is night, and responding to requests to just open their eyes with a sermon about not being simplistic.

Thinking that Mormon polygamy can be brushed off with fussy details and airy principles is a disconnect with reality. It only shows how much Mormons don't get it. And if they can be so blind and deaf about something like this, then it's obviously not worth taking them seriously about anything.

The only hope to salvage anything credible in Mormonism, now that we know how Smith lived, is to admit loudly and clearly, as the very first thing, that Smith was a bad guy and most of his teaching was self-serving scam. Only that much honesty and realism will earn any further attention. After that, there might be a chance to say that through that badly flawed channel God somehow did reveal some true things. Then you'd have to say what those things were, and they had better be good.

Personally, I don't see how to pull off this approach. Once you take out of Mormonism all the priesthood keys and ordinances stuff that is just about giving Smith and his Mormon leader successors all their status and power, I don't see anything left except fake history and 19th-century New Age metaphysics, which are worthless, plus generic Protestant Christianity that can be had without Mormon baggage. But maybe an aware yet sincere Mormon could make a case that I couldn't.

I repeat, though, that any more ambitious Mormon defence than that, trying to make out that polygamy was somehow remotely acceptable, is as hopeless and ridiculous as any oblivious babbling from the person clenching their eyes in the sun. If you even think there is anything that you could possibly say, then all you are saying is that you don't get it.

I have much more respect for Hyatt. She's just misinformed about Smith. At worst, she may be deliberately closing her eyes to avoid seeing the truth about Smith. At least she's not deliberately closing her eyes to the truth about what a sex life like Smith's actually was would imply for his church.

It’s interesting that all the apologetic justification of Joseph Smith’s behaviour is also a de facto justification of Warren Jeff’s practice of plural marriage. Two peas from the same pod. Then we have the SLC LDS Prophet saying that plural marriage isn’t doctrinal and condemning it. Which throws all the apologetics on it under bus. And all the apologetic justification of it is likewise throwing their own Prophet, Hinckley, someone they sustained, under the bus. How can they sustain Hinckley with one hand, and then unsustain him with apologetic justification of something he condemned and declared non doctrinal?

[Limnor]

Yeah, I'm not trying to convince MG of anything about Smith or Mormonism. I'm trying to convey the bad news about how non-Mormons see Smith and Mormonism, to let him and any other Mormon apologists direct their efforts better.

The nuance card is worthless. Long paragraphs about historical arcs, and moralising against black-and-white thinking, only make Mormonism look even worse and more ridiculous, like the person with their eyes squeezed shut at noon, claiming that it is night, and responding to requests to just open their eyes with a sermon about not being simplistic.

Thinking that Mormon polygamy can be brushed off with fussy details and airy principles is a disconnect with reality. It only shows how much Mormons don't get it. And if they can be so blind and deaf about something like this, then it's obviously not worth taking them seriously about anything.

I agree. This isn’t an attack so much as a report: this is how Mormonism reads to people outside it. Smith’s behavior isn’t a complicated historical puzzle that just needs nuanced explanations. When believers respond with long arcs and lectures about avoiding black-and-white thinking, it doesn’t sound sophisticated, it sounds disconnected from reality.

[Limnor]

The problem isn’t the veracity of the evidence, it’s the source of that evidence. When South Park showed the episode with Joseph looking at a rock in a hat, Mormon’s were outraged at the misrepresentation. But once the Church had confessed that Joseph had indeed used a rock in a hat, suddenly that was the way Joseph had always done it and the Church hadn’t hidden anything. It’s a bizarre dynamic to observe. Handily for the Church, members like MG will even gaslight themselves.

Take same sex marriage. Today MG is against same sex marriage because it isn’t God’s pattern for marriage. When the Church changes its stance MG will say you need to consider the arc of marriage to see that same sex marriage was always part of the plan and within the context of Church teachings. He is utterly without personal moral fibre. He will bend whichever way the Mormon wind blows, even if it’s the opposite direction from yesterday.

I’m seeing that recurring pattern. LDS doctrines are repeatedly read back into earlier periods and then treated as if they were always present.

Some examples include the JST adjustments to Abraham’s experience and later alignment to the commandment of D&C 132 that are taught as a single doctrine about Abraham. Sealing keys are pushed back to 1823 despite the first documented claim appearing in 1836. The Book of Abraham projects fully formed LDS metaphysics into Abraham’s timeframe, and the Book of Mormon presents a particular form of baptism as an ordinance centuries before Jesus.

Each case produces an arc, sure, but it does so through manipulation of chronology that allows later interpretation and revelation to cover earlier evidence and behavior. That may seem persuasive internally, but it presents credibility problems when making historical claims to outsiders.

[MG 2.0]

No, the historical arc isn't important. Discovering Smith's many affairs and "plural marriages" is exactly like discovering his secret bank account. It speaks for itself. He was a scammer looking for status to get sex. The end.

Calling that verdict "simplistic" and talking about historical arcs is just squeezing your eyes up tight against the midday sun and saying that it's still night.

No, it's not. That's the sun. Open your eyes.

Then it's settled.

Regards,
MG