? 4 DCP: Will there be changes to the lesson manuals?

[_Maxrep]

Personally I think this is unfair. He comes here and explains why he is less bothered by what he stated was the most difficult issue and you dismiss the integrity of the statement by "Well he must just say he still believes because he has a lost to lose." If you cannot win be arguing then you impugn his character. Just cause he comes to different conclusions then you when examining the same facts does not mean he is not honest.

Heck, we could argue you left but bases on your story you seemed pretty much like a weak kneed Mormon to start with, or that you were looking for an excuse to sin. That is the same thing you just did to Daniel Peterson.

Jason,

I agree with you. I also must acknowledge that there is validity in recognizing that associations in our social and family circles exert influence. How much influence any one individual experiences is completely subjective. To what degree an individual yields to these influences is subjective as well.

Picture for a moment Olympic judging with events that carry artistic values like gymnastics, figure skating, etc. We all have noticed at times what could be seen as favoritism between judges and athletes from certain countries. We have also witnessed instances where athletes may have been marginalized by certain judges simply due to the nation they are aligned with. Bias does exist. In many instances though, it cannot be measured with hard numerical values.

Now, it could be said that this is a double edged sword that encompasses the "bitter critic" as well as the apologist. If both groups may be capable of displaying bias, can one group also carry a bias that is noticeably more pronounced than the other?

My anecdotal observation is that the identity of an LDS member is tied to faithfull membership in the church in a much stronger fashion than the critic being identified by his nonbelief in the Mormon church. Many who do not believe are not recognized by their peers as non believers. Honestly, I would say that the bias exercised by members is far greater than that of the critic.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Now, it could be said that this is a double edged sword that encompasses the "bitter critic" as well as the apologist. If both groups may be capable of displaying bias, can one group also carry a bias that is noticeably more pronounced than the other?

My anecdotal observation is that the identity of an LDS member is tied to faithfull membership in the church in a much stronger fashion than the critic being identified by his nonbelief in the Mormon church. Many who do not believe are not recognized by their peers as non believers. Honestly, I would say that the bias exercised by members is far greater than that of the critic.

On the other hand, the rather juvenile bitterness and personal hostility toward even believing strangers that's manifested by certain critics is simply off the charts. Don't ignore that in your equation.

[_harmony]

I've been on the Rez this weekend so have been MIA. A few comments:

PP, stick with the subject of the thread. You make critics look bad when you attack the poster's character instead of the subject. Try a little harder, please.

Daniel, it's good to see you here. I disagree with you on many things, and this is no different but you present your argument well (when you aren't sniping at PP, but there's no doubt you're justified in that).

My take on the DNA study: I'd be very surprised if we ever see any results from that study. Unless it's financed by the enemies of the church (and I really don't see that happening), the results will never be revealed. Why? Because to do so would create more questions than the study or the church is prepared to answer.

My take on Joseph having sex with his wives: I think he did, and the reason I think he did is that several of them said he did. Their journals are enough for me.

My take on Joseph as a prophet: I think he was one, right up until he wasn't. I have my own opinion on when that took place.

My take on Joseph as a leader of women: I think his words from the pulpit regarding multiple wives revealed exactly what kind of man he was. He took the easy way out, he was no more honest than he had to be, he was a schemer. I think he loved women in general, and that caused many of his actions. I think he lived in a fantasy world of his own making, and he died when the real world collided with it.

Joseph was a complex man who was in many ways conflicted with himself. His contradictions are legion. I doubt that he saw God, but I think he created an incredible work in the Book of Mormon. Much of what Mormons credit God for is in reality simply the creation of Joseph's mind, and there is little reason to worship Joseph's mind.

[_Seven]

Thus, I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt in the matter of plural marriage.

Would you mind sharing what you mean here?

What I mean is that I believe him to have been a true prophet. I believe this on the basis of a number of lines of reasoning. One of those that I prefer involves the Witnesses to the Book of Mormon (on whom the classic book is Richard Lloyd Anderson's Investigating the Witnesses of the Book of Mormon, though some other recent materials, such as the new book on Oliver Cowdery edited by John Welch and Larry Morris, are also exceptionally valuable). I cannot get around the Witnesses. No counterexplanation for their claims seems to me even remotely plausible. Another involves the Book of Mormon itself. No counterexplanation for it strikes me as even remotely plausible, either. (I've published a fair amount on this. Much of it, but not all, is available on the FARMS or Maxwell Institute website.) Another superb recent book is John Welch, ed., Opening the Heavens. Some really stunning material.

I also believe him to have been sincere. Again, I have several bases for my conviction that he was sincere. One of those bases is his personality, as it is revealed in, for example, Dean Jessee's collection of The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith. These are writings that were never designed for publication. They are quite revealing. If he was not a sincere believer, I'm simply incapable of distinguishing sincerity from insincerity in anybody.

Finally, I believe the testimonies of scores of people who knew him very well that he was a good man. Many of these testimonies are included in Mark McConkie's recent book, Remembering Joseph.

How do you reconcile these testimonies with the honest men and women who testified of his immoral behavior and dishonesty? How about the women who were slandered for rejecting polygamy?

It seems to me that you've bought into a very dark reading of Joseph's behavior at the origins of plural marriage. I don't think the sources compel so dark a reading, though I freely grant that they allow it. That's why I say that what we bring to the data deeply influences how we read it. Richard Bushman's Rough Stone Rolling offers a much more positive reading of the situation. I'm aware that some wish to dismiss him as a mere Mopologist spin-artist. They're free to do that, of course. But he is universally recognized (by reasonable observers, anyway, in and out of the Church) as a premiere American historian, and a very bright, sensitive, intelligent, competent, and honest man.

Like I said, I came to the table with nothing but good feelings toward Joseph Smith. The data I did bring to the table was a love and honor for the sacred union between one huband and one wife. If you come to the table believing adultery/polygamy and deception of one's wife and the church is immoral, it is hard for me to understand how I can make Joseph come out as a man of integrity and good character. There are certain character attributes that Trump all others. In other words, there are people that are guilty of crimes all the time that seemed like good men otherwise.

I have read most of RSR and there was a bit of spin on the plural marriage section but I am pleased that Bushman has given the LDS a book that confronts the more uncomfortable topics. Although mildly apologetic as it is, it is still a great book.

I hope that this helps. But if, as is likely, it doesn't, at least you should understand a bit better where I'm coming from.

I believe you are sincere in your testimony of Joseph's good character and intentions with plural marriage. However, I would guess what you brought to the table was indifference on the topic of polygamy. Most men do not have any feelings toward the practice until Joseph and Brigham's polyandry is discussed or the naïve very young teenage girls who were coerced.

What bothers me even more than the practice of it, was Joseph's passion for changing traditional monogamous marriage to this new order. The darker part of this for me are the teachings that it was required for exaltation, the only form of marriage in heaven, Jesus was a polygamist, etc... Looking at the big picture and the building up of Zion, this is the heaven that awaits women??? Men don't get this part of it- we are not viewed as equals in LDS doctrine. Looking at the theocracy that existed in Utah and the secrecy of hiding the practice from the Saints until they were isolated gives me strong conviction for the seperation of church and state.

The popular position among LDS who study polygamy seems to be that the principle must be true but mistakes were made because we live in a fallen world. They believe in heaven it will all make sense.
Is that your position?
That is the way for most to deal with their testimony that Joseph was a true Prophet and to make some sense of it but now God is the one who is sexist.

I am open to the possibility that he was a Prophet but was deceived or seduced by power, as many who left the church over this felt.
My conscience has always told me that it's the principle that is wrong-there is no correct way to live polygamy without creating an inequality/subordination of women and abuse of the most sacred union between man and woman.

Thank you for explaining your position and the book recommendations.

[Anonymous]

Tarski

There was a notion of birth contol though wasn't there? How many kids does Hugh Hefner have and what does that indicate?
Also, why did Joseph Smith fail with the raising up of seed rationale given by the Lord himself?

by the way, having secret spiritual wives who were already married (even without sex) seems like spiritual infidelity anyway.

Yes, but Tarski, look at your reasoning above.

1. You introduce birth control as one reason that Joseph Smith offspring from his polygamous unions haven't materialized.

and in the next breath you assert that

2. Because of D&C 132 (?) that specifies the raising up of seed that constitutes at least low level evidence that his unions included sexual realtions. (and by the way, I do think that they did)

Here's the problem:

If the purpose of polygamy was to raise up seed, you can't use birth control as a possible defense against the lack of polygamous progeny produced by Joseph Smith.

In other words, ya need to pick a spot and land on it.

:-)

And I say as I have so many times in the past:

Show me the children of Joseph Smith and his wives.

Hi Jersey Girl,

I believe Joseph had sex/consumated these marriages with most of his wives, even Helen Mar Kimball, based on the journals, secrecy, and sacrifices they testified of. Some of the women were clear that carnal sex was a part of these marriages when Joseph Smith's son interviewed them. Some broke down in tears when he demanded proof of children from their claims that his father engaged in polygamous sex.

As for the lack of children I see a few possibilities.
*the jury is still out on the DNA of possible descendants. Will there be a cover up if one is discovered, especially a polyandrous one? If there were children born, they would have been hidden due to the secrecy of Nauvoo polygamy and to protect the "royal" blood so I wonder how many have been tested so far.

*It is also possible that the marriages were consumated but birth control was to be used until they were safe in Utah. In the main books on polygamy like "In Sacred Loneliness", "Mormon Polygamy" etc., the "raising of seed" doctrine was not given to the women during their proposals and teachings of plural marriage that I can find. Section 132 wasn't given to the church until many years later in Utah and it's main message was for Emma only. It is unclear to me if Joseph's other wives were taught from this revelation before Emma was. Most of the women were given teachings on Celestial marriage talking of the restoration of the new order and exaltation rewards. Unless these books left it out, seed was not the rational until much later. In other words, there could have been 2 different stages that plural marriage went through based on the dangers of exposing this radical change of traditional marriage.

*Even the Book of Mormo/ Jacob 2 condemns polygamy. There is a loophole scripture that apologists use that offers the raising of seed rational but I was unable to find any reference of early polygamists using that scirpture at anytime to justify their practice.

*Even under the best of circumstances, conception is quite miraculous. It's amazing that one sperm even makes it up the egg when you watch the process and challenges those little guys go through to get there. Although there are those cases of women who get pregnant the first try, it is not the norm. The timing has to be right around ovulation and under the best circumstances. With the 33 wives Joseph had to divide his very limited time between, I would guess conception would be rather difficult. Trying to impregnante any of those women, while living under the watchful eye of Emma whom he lived with would have been extremely unlikely. Add the secrecy, stress, persecution, building a new religion, and very irregular contact with the wives, odds are not good that these women could have had enough sex with him to conceive. Stress is a big factor in couples who have trouble conceiving.

Had Joseph lived with all of his wives and alternated sleeping with them every few days, knew their ovulation cycle, wasn't under great stress, etc. then I belive the lack of children would be problematic.

[_Loquacious Lurker]

Show me the children of Joseph Smith and his wives.

Just floating this theory out there...not that I think it necessarily true, but...what if Joseph didn't conceive children with some of his wives, because they were simply too young to bear children? There is much evidence that girls menstruated at a later age in the nineteenth century. What if, say, in the case of Helen Mar Kimball, at age fourteen or fifteen, she had simply not had her first period yet?

[_Daniel Peterson]

That could potentially explain a few cases, but not most.

[_harmony]

Show me the children of Joseph Smith and his wives.

Just floating this theory out there...not that I think it necessarily true, but...what if Joseph didn't conceive children with some of his wives, because they were simply too young to bear children? There is much evidence that girls menstruated at a later age in the nineteenth century. What if, say, in the case of Helen Mar Kimball, at age fourteen or fifteen, she had simply not had her first period yet?

I'm not sure the evidence is conclusive that Joseph ever had intimate relations with Helen. I think hers was a dynastic sealing, not a marriage.

[_beastie]

Daniel,

If I missed where you explained this, I apologize. I still do not understand your reasoning in the following -

You accept that Joseph Smith had sex with his nonpolyandrous wives, but hedge your bets with the polyandrous wives, and use the lack of genetic evidence of children to support your hedge. Yet that same problem exists with the nonpolyandrous wives - so far, no genetic offspring have been identified.

So why are you insisting that the lack of offspring (if the Lyons case doesn't pan out, which, according to the site I linked, looks positive so far) is reason to doubt intimate relations with polyandrous wives, but it's not reason to doubt intimate relations with nonpolyandrous wives?

If you accept that he had sex with his nonpolyandrous wives, and only those willing to call those women liars would insist otherwise, then you are still left with the problematic lack of biological offspring (for now, until testing is complete). So whatever the reason was that Joseph Smith did not produce children with his nonpolyandrous wives is likely the same reason he did not produce children with the polyandrous children (for now, until testing is complete).

So if you are willing to accept the testimonial evidence of the women interviewed to fight the RLDS' church's attempts to prove Joseph Smith did not practice polygamy, then you cannot logically use the (current) lack of evidence of biological children from the polyandrous unions to doubt sexual contact therein.

Jersey Girl -

Are you willing to call the women whose testimonials were accumulated to prove Joseph Smith was a polygamist to the RLDS liars? They apparently did not produce children to show, either, yet these women maintained (in delicate terms, but leaving little doubt) that their marital relationship with Joseph Smith was a physical relationship just like any other marriage.

Just think about this. The vast majority of the time (the exceptions were so rare to be almost not worth mentioning) Joseph Smith was hiding his polygamous relationships from Emma. He was running a church, as well as a town (and many other things as well, such as running for president). He had dozens of plural wives. Just how often was he going to be able to have conjugal relations with each and every wife?

[_beastie]

I said:

What isn't fine is when they act as if they continue to believe due to their superior academic background or superior reasoning. In reality, you, and all the others, believe in these things for reasons that have nothing to do with academia or logic at all. You do your best to feel intellectually better about believing in the things you believe by using academia or logic, but it often ends up very strained. And then those who offer these strained apologia insist that those who reject it as strained are silly and stupid.

Daniel replied:

You were doing pretty well until you reached the passage above. Then, ironically, you insinuated that those who don't agree with you are silly and stupid. We believe against the facts, in spite of logic, on the basis of strained reasoning and self-deception.

Having made such an insinuation, you're in no position whatever to demand that anybody else grant the rationality of your position (even though, in fact, I do, and have repeatedly said so).

I most certainly was not insinuating that people who don’t agree with me are silly and stupid. I stated what believers admit all the time – you don’t believe because of academia or logic – you believe for other reasons – ie, the witness of the HG, which you feel Trump's all else. The witness from the Holy Ghost Trump's all else. If, for example, the HG witnesses to someone that the Book of Mormon is an ancient historical document translated by the power of God, under LDS theology, that Trump's the evidence “of man” that contradicts that position. Believers hope that eventually evidence will be found to support their position, but even if it never is, the witness of the HG Trump's all else. This is the foundation of LDS belief – personal revelation that Trump's the knowledge of man. This is a reason “other than” academia and logic, is it not?

Even aside from the particular LDS theology, religious belief in general, which usually entails subjects that defy science and logic – or lack thereof – is not related to intelligence or lack thereof, or silliness or lack thereof.

The strained apologia is related to attempts to justify beliefs that are particularly problematic in terms of science or logic. It is problematic to insist that a Judeo-Christian culture existed in ancient Mesoamerica, given the current state of knowledge about that region and time period. Attempts to justify this are going to be strained, because they are reacting against accepted knowledge. Attempts to justify Joseph Smith marrying other men’s wives is going to be strained, because it flies in the face of accepted morality.

For some reason, LDS apologists often just cannot seem to bring themselves to admit their underdog status in a way that accepts and embraces just what that status means. It’s hubris to pretend otherwise. This is not true for every area of apologia, but for those that are particularly problematic. Church history or expanding knowledge has created some really tough rows to hoe for apologists. Among those I would count: the Book of Abraham, historicity of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith’ polyandry, past violent racist or violent rhetoric from prophets. Apologia, for these areas, is not easy. It is a tough job.

It’s the refusal to admit this that translates into hubris. Why is it seemingly impossible for LDS defenders to admit that, for example, defending Joseph Smith’ polyandry is a much, much harder job than criticizing that same behavior? Defending the Book of Abraham translation is a much harder job than criticizing it, and so on.