LifeOnaPlate wrote: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.
I did not realize this.
When some of you were TBMs and came across some of this history how did it affect you? This just appears, to me, to be such an ugly history of rampant sexual abuse and coercion in the name of God. I don't really understand the position of defenders. If he did have sex with these young ladies then it appears that he would be akin to most leaders of small fanatical cults that prey upon their own members. I thought the common defense against Joseph Smith being a sexual predator was that he did NOT have sex with them? This is the mantra I read often on MAD.
Is there no official position of the Church on this matter?
When some of you were TBMs and came across some of this history how did it affect you? This just appears, to me, to be such an ugly history of rampant sexual abuse and coercion in the name of God. I don't really understand the position of defenders. If he did have sex with these young ladies then it appears that he would be akin to most leaders of small fanatical cults that prey upon their own members. I thought the common defense against Joseph Smith being a sexual predator was that he did NOT have sex with them? This is the mantra I read often on MAD.
Is there no official position of the Church on this matter?
I just ordered the Compton book.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I rationalized this stuff for a very long time. And then one day it became clear to me just what I had done in rationalizing. It literally was the epiphany that caused everything else to fall. And the funny thing is that I'm told I am just judging Joseph too harshly or holding up unreasonable standards or being a sexual "Puritan."
No, I'm just not trying to suppress my conscience anymore.
LifeOnaPlate wrote: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.
Yes; I agree with you. What I object to is the apologetic position that tries to dismiss and/or downplay the sex which no doubt took place in these polygamous marriages. So, DCP's "no Mopologist ever claimed the polygamous marriages were 'platonic'!" comment seemed quite earth-shattering, in my opinion.
LifeOnaPlate wrote: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.
Yes; I agree with you. What I object to is the apologetic position that tries to dismiss and/or downplay the sex which no doubt took place in these polygamous marriages. So, DCP's "no Mopologist ever claimed the polygamous marriages were 'platonic'!" comment seemed quite earth-shattering, in my opinion.
DCP's assertion was that scottie was wrong in saying, as he did at the start and later adjusted, that ALL Mormon apologists say all the marriages were platonic.
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
LifeOnaPlate wrote: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.
Yes; I agree with you. What I object to is the apologetic position that tries to dismiss and/or downplay the sex which no doubt took place in these polygamous marriages. So, DCP's "no Mopologist ever claimed the polygamous marriages were 'platonic'!" comment seemed quite earth-shattering, in my opinion.
DCP's assertion was that scottie was wrong in saying, as he did at the start and later adjusted, that ALL Mormon apologists say all the marriages were platonic.
But is that not what most---if not all---LDS apologists are trying to argue? Even if only by suggestion and implication?
LifeOnaPlate wrote: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.
Yes; I agree with you. What I object to is the apologetic position that tries to dismiss and/or downplay the sex which no doubt took place in these polygamous marriages. So, DCP's "no Mopologist ever claimed the polygamous marriages were 'platonic'!" comment seemed quite earth-shattering, in my opinion.
DCP's assertion was that scottie was wrong in saying, as he did at the start and later adjusted, that ALL Mormon apologists say all the marriages were platonic.
But is that not what most---if not all---LDS apologists are trying to argue? Even if only by suggestion and implication?
I have never personally seen an LDS apologetic publication that says ALL of the marriages were platonic.
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
LifeOnaPlate wrote: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.
Yes; I agree with you. What I object to is the apologetic position that tries to dismiss and/or downplay the sex which no doubt took place in these polygamous marriages. So, DCP's "no Mopologist ever claimed the polygamous marriages were 'platonic'!" comment seemed quite earth-shattering, in my opinion.
DCP's assertion was that scottie was wrong in saying, as he did at the start and later adjusted, that ALL Mormon apologists say all the marriages were platonic.
But is that not what most---if not all---LDS apologists are trying to argue? Even if only by suggestion and implication?
I have never personally seen an LDS apologetic publication that says ALL of the marriages were platonic.
Of course not. But, on the other hand, have you ever seen an LDS apologetic publication which says the opposite---i.e., that Joseph Smith, or BY, or whomever else, was having sex with his polygamous wives? I can't recall ever having seen one that just admits it outrightly. Instead, the main goal of Mopologetics on this issue, as far as I know, has been to downplay the thought of any kind of sexual polygamous activity at all costs.