Tal Bachman DECIMATES a popular apologetic

[_Ray A]

A number of days ago, someone at RFM reposted a quote from Tal Bachman made sometime earlier.

The actual post was quite long, but I can abbreviate it effectively enough, I think.

Tal addressed one of the apologists' favorite arguments: The anti-presentist argument. You know, the which goes "It's wrong to judge Joseph Smith by our modern 21st Century moral standards. We must judge Joseph Smith by his own 19th Century standards."

The problem with this apologetic stance, according to Tal, is twofold:

FIRST, this implies that society is becoming increasingly moral as time goes on. Or, in other words, we are all becoming more moral than we were before. HOWEVER, the prophets and apostles repeatedly and obsessively tell us that our society's morals are getting worse all the time, that this generation is more wicked than the one in the days of Noah, etc. So, which is it? Are the apologists right and modern society more moral than ever before, or are the prophets right and modern society is less moral than ever before? [Or is this another instance of Internet Mormonism vs. Chapel Mormonism?]

I haven't read the other posts but I'll chip in. Many of my points have nothing to do with what prophets say. Morality is a complex issue for historians. Maybe it's black and white for some, for those who believe there's an "objective morality". Take euthanasia. Is it right or wrong to allow someone in terrible pain to die at their wish? You'll find division on this question, with both parties claiming morality for their position. Why do we put down animals to spare them suffering, but allow humans to suffer? Is that moral? I don't buy the argument that morality is getting better, but in many ways we have become more ethical. Slavery was abolished, polygamy has been outlawed in all western countries which follow the Judaeo-Christian ethic. We have more awareness of environmentalism. We have progressed in medicine and science to the point where we now have bionic arms amuptees can operate just by thinking, and their brain waves operate the arm, but we don't know if the person/people who invented this have five sexual partners "on the side". We don't know if they beat their spouses. We don't know if they filter funds from banks through electronic means. Society has generally become "more caring" in most areas, but that's no guarantee that personal morality has improved.

Let me give another angle and example from an Australian sport, rugby league. In the last few years many players have been "outed" for drink-driving, being thugs bashing people at nightclubs, getting drunk and harassing people, and in several cases accused of rape. How come this never happened in the 1940s-80s? Well, it did, but what changed was huge player salaries, up to $400,000 a year, more media scrutiny, and more accountability, drink-drive laws, and women who would speak out now but not in the early days. This gives the perception that morality has grown worse. It hasn't. It's still the same. Yet, crime has changed in some ways; we can no longer sleep with our front doors unlocked, like many of us did in the 1950s and 60s. But what caused that shift? A larger population, unemployment, the proliferation of new drugs and more pushers. 80% percent of house break and enter has been linked to drugs. Has human nature changed? No, circumstances have. Access to violence and porn in film, video and computer is now at one's fingertips. If someone living in the 19th century had access to all this would they act any differently than someone today? No. Queen Victoria kept nudes in her collections, and Henry VIII had numerous wives. Some Protestant and Catholic priests in the 15th-18th centuries had concubines (for details see Owen Chadwick, The Reformation). Muhammad married a nine year old girl. Some popes were reported to be incestuous. So did pedophile priests suddenly appear? No. This went on all through the 1950s- 1990s, but reporting, exposure, and more accountability informed us. Have Catholic priests become more moral, yes, and seminary numbers have fallen to record lows. It's hard to find men wanting to go into the celibate priesthood now.

Strictly speaking, it is not incorrect to say that we have become worse, less moral, but that's because we have a greater population, access to more sophisticated ways of crime and immorality. Japan was one of the most prudish societies until about ten years ago, now it has a proliferation and indulgence in porn almost like no other country. What brought this about? Sociological studies and government action. It was discovered that with more porn availability sex crimes decreased, significantly, so the government acted. One might now say Japan is "disgusting" because of the amount and nature of the porn coming out of there, but as far as sex crime is concerned it's now more moral than it was under porn prohibition and the shame attached to its use before. One might say, from the perspective of a prophet, Japan is heading for Sodom. It's disputable that the proliferation of porn does family life any good. But what does that say about the polygamous nature of males? Does anyone doubt that? How many US presidents had women on the side? Jefferson was mentioned, as he had slave concubines. According to Tal he was "ashamed" when all of this was discovered. But did that alter the facts? Does that alter the fact of what human nature, and particularly the nature of males is? Shame is only the reaction of being exposed for doing something we all like to think "only bad or immoral people do". How many men who criticise Joseph Smith have had adulterous affairs? How many have lied to their wives? Or girlfriends? The question is hypothetical, but maybe you get the drift.

As far as Mormonism can curb immorality, by diverting the sexual drive of males into religious devotion (which sometimes goes overboard, perhaps because of that repression), then it is getting morally better. So when a prophet says that immorality is getting "worse", he is correct in the sense I mentioned above, but it is getting better for Mormons who abide by the laws of the gospel. So it's not so much "society is getting worse", it's that Mormons are getting better, or it could be JWs, or SDAs, or Christians, with exceptions like Baker, Swaggart, and Haggard. The irony for me, which is what I question, is whether we will have a "better" society with no abortions, no gay marriage, no porn availability, no birth control, etc. Mother Theresa was outspoken about abortion and all of the popes have condemned contraception, which has led to epidemics of unwanted children, AIDS and other sexual diseases killing a continents in the Third World. Men go out and have adulterous affairs without using condoms, get AIDS, and bring it home to their wives. This again is the "Japan equation". Which is worse?

Just some thoughts.

[_Mister Scratch]

This all reminds me. Years ago, I visited Nauvoo (before the temple was rebuilt and when it was still a sleepy little town). I'm a bit of a history buff, and knew where in the little neighboring village of Warsaw, Illinois (a few miles from Carthage and Nauvoo) that Thomas Sharp, editor of the Warsaw Signal, the most rabid of all anti-Mormon publications of the time, had maintained his office in 1844. Sharp was the man credited with fomenting the greatest hatred toward the Mormons, and he was believed to have participated in the murders at Carthage (he was later tried, and acquitted with the other defendants -- by the way, when later asked if he did participate in the murders, all he had to say was: "Well, the jury said not."), and a few years later he helped burn down the Nauvoo Temple. I found what used to be his newspaper office (now an abandoned shell among many other vacant storefronts along main street in Warsaw), and took great pleasure in delivering the largest loogie I could muster onto the front glass of the old newspaper office.

Well, as the old saying goes: To err is human, to spit is divine.

[_harmony]

Queen Victoria kept nudes in her collections, and Henry VIII had numerous wives.

Henry only had one wife at a time. He got rid of/killed each one before he married the next one. That small detail means he and Joseph were not in the same club. Henry was a killer; Joseph was an adulterer.

Muhammad married a nine year old girl.

Can we stick to historical facts and leave the religious myths aside?

How many US presidents had women on the side? Jefferson was mentioned, as he had slave concubines.

1. Jefferson is one of many, and is not representative of the entire sample.
2. If I recall correctly, it's not completely established that Jefferson fathered children with his female slave.
3. US presidents and LDS prophets are two very different catagories, driven by different motives. The people supposedly "call" one; God supposedly calls the other. Two very different standards apply.

How many men who criticise Joseph Smith have had adulterous affairs? How many have lied to their wives? Or girlfriends? The question is hypothetical, but maybe you get the drift.

Even if every single one of the critics was guilty, that doesn't mean Joseph should be given a free pass. He did what he did. There is no getting around that, no matter what sins the critics themselves have on their own personal slate.

[_Ray A]

Henry only had one wife at a time. He got rid of/killed each one before he married the next one. That small detail means he and Joseph were not in the same club. Henry was a killer; Joseph was an adulterer.

This is not the subject. The subject is whether society is morally better now or not.

Muhammad married a nine year old girl.

Can we stick to historical facts and leave the religious myths aside?

The Hadith states she was six or seven when betrothed and nine when she married Muhammad. But there is some disputation. There is no "religious myth" here.

This is still not the main subject. The subject is whether society is morally better now or not.

1. Jefferson is one of many, and is not representative of the entire sample.
2. If I recall correctly, it's not completely established that Jefferson fathered children with his female slave.
3. US presidents and LDS prophets are two very different catagories, driven by different motives. The people supposedly "call" one; God supposedly calls the other. Two very different standards apply.

This is not the subject. The subject is whether society is morally better now or not.

Even if every single one of the critics was guilty, that doesn't mean Joseph should be given a free pass. He did what he did. There is no getting around that, no matter what sins the critics themselves have on their own personal slate.

Still not on subject, but I know of your deep love and affection for Joseph Smith. You must have to take sedatives when you go to church and hear his name, which I gather is not often.

I may have missed it, but what is your view? Is society getting more moral, or less moral? Here is what I was addressing in general:

Tal addressed one of the apologists' favorite arguments: The anti-presentist argument. You know, the which goes "It's wrong to judge Joseph Smith by our modern 21st Century moral standards. We must judge Joseph Smith by his own 19th Century standards."

The problem with this apologetic stance, according to Tal, is twofold:

FIRST, this implies that society is becoming increasingly moral as time goes on. Or, in other words, we are all becoming more moral than we were before. HOWEVER, the prophets and apostles repeatedly and obsessively tell us that our society's morals are getting worse all the time, that this generation is more wicked than the one in the days of Noah, etc. So, which is it? Are the apologists right and modern society more moral than ever before, or are the prophets right and modern society is less moral than ever before? [Or is this another instance of Internet Mormonism vs. Chapel Mormonism?]

In case you missed it, my view is that society is getting more moral in some ways, and less moral in others, and I described in detail why. I also don't believe basic human nature has changed. So whether we're talking about Judah and prostitution, King David's adultery, Joseph Smith's polygamy, or Brunei where men are allowed four wives, or Clinton's free oral lessons to Monica Lewinski, human nature remains the same.

[_Runtu]

Ray, I thought the subject was whether those who find Joseph's behavior reprehensible are guilty of presentism, not whether society is better or worse. Am I missing something?

[_Ray A]

Ray, I thought the subject was whether those who find Joseph's behavior reprehensible are guilty of presentism, not whether society is better or worse. Am I missing something?

You might be confusing threads, and they are both conflated, but this is what I was addressing, in the bolded portions:

Tal addressed one of the apologists' favorite arguments: The anti-presentist argument. You know, the which goes "It's wrong to judge Joseph Smith by our modern 21st Century moral standards. We must judge Joseph Smith by his own 19th Century standards."

The problem with this apologetic stance, according to Tal, is twofold:

FIRST, this implies that society is becoming increasingly moral as time goes on. Or, in other words, we are all becoming more moral than we were before. HOWEVER, the prophets and apostles repeatedly and obsessively tell us that our society's morals are getting worse all the time, that this generation is more wicked than the one in the days of Noah, etc. So, which is it? Are the apologists right and modern society more moral than ever before, or are the prophets right and modern society is less moral than ever before? [Or is this another instance of Internet Mormonism vs. Chapel Mormonism?]

[_Runtu]

I agree that the world is more moral in some ways and less so in others. Tal's argument was not whether such was the case, but rather that the apologists' approach seems to assume that the world is better, whereas the Brethren have taught that it has become progressively worse.

[_Ray A]

Tal's argument was not whether such was the case, but rather that the apologists' approach seems to assume that the world is better, whereas the Brethren have taught that it has become progressively worse.

I'd love to see some of Tal's sources. I don't know where he gets all this from. As if you can define apologists in strict categories. Internet/Chapel Mormonism has similar definitional problems. I know internet Mormons who are raging TBMs and fall for none of the relativism. Take Paul Osborne, for example. Or Jean Borde in Trinidad. I do think the Liahona/Iron Rodder definition is better because it allows more flexibility. You can be either and a chapel or internet Mormon. But you have internet Mormons who are also chapel Mormons, and chapel Mormons who are internet Mormons. I think Shades developed this definition strictly from the internet, and especially perhaps from FAIR, but when Richard Poll developed the Liahona/Iron Rodder definition this was long before the internet, so strictly speaking "internet Mormons" have been around since the 19th century.

[_Runtu]

Tal's argument was not whether such was the case, but rather that the apologists' approach seems to assume that the world is better, whereas the Brethren have taught that it has become progressively worse.

I'd love to see some of Tal's sources. I don't know where he gets all this from. As if you can define apologists in strict categories. Internet/Chapel Mormonism has similar definitional problems. I know internet Mormons who are raging TBMs and fall for none of the relativism. Take Paul Osborne, for example. Or Jean Borde in Trinidad. I do think the Liahona/Iron Rodder definition is better because it allows more flexibility. You can be either and a chapel or internet Mormon. But you have internet Mormons who are also chapel Mormons, and chapel Mormons who are internet Mormons. I think Shades developed this definition strictly from the internet, and especially perhaps from FAIR, but when Richard Poll developed the Liahona/Iron Rodder definition this was long before the internet, so strictly speaking "internet Mormons" have been around since the 19th century.

I don't think Tal was thinking about Internet/Chapel distinctions. I've been on the boards for 12 years, and I've seen this presentism argument used time and again. The argument seems to be that sexual mores were not quite as stringent back in Joseph's day as they are now, which I think you and I would both reject.

[_Ray A]

I don't think Tal was thinking about Internet/Chapel distinctions. I've been on the boards for 12 years, and I've seen this presentism argument used time and again. The argument seems to be that sexual mores were not quite as stringent back in Joseph's day as they are now, which I think you and I would both reject.

It was Shades who suggested, at the end of his post, about internet/chapel Mormonism. So no, it wasn't Tal. I'd really like to see some of these arguments and who exactly uses them. I'm not really seeing the "meat". Sexual mores don't come under neat definitions, as I pointed out in my posts on the presentism thread. In some ways they (19th century) were more strict, but in other ways they were, by modern definitions, less strict. Polygamy has always been with us, throughout the globe, and some societies have been polyandrous, though monogamy has always been dominant in history.

Joseph Smith knew he was acting differently to what his peers would accept, hence the initial secrecy, so that alone says that sexual mores motivated him to act secretly, until he could convince enough that God ordered him to do this. The Saints broke away and practised polygamy in Utah, but even then they could not enter the Union until they gave it up. But presentism, judging another era by the mores of this one, for a historian, is problematic. It would be like assuming, to give a crass example, that someone in the 19th century who said "I am so gay", was homosexual. That's a very crass example, but this is how the fallacy of presentism is. It does not apply only to morals. Slavery may be a "relic of barbarism", but the fact is that long before abolition it was not considered barbaric. So to say that those who practised slavery when it was acceptable were "evil" is the fallacy of presentism. I have been arguing from the historian's point of view. Historians are not supposed to make judgements about the morality of people. They relate history. A classic case of presentism actually comes from a very good historian, Dr. Eric Williams, who wrote quite good history, but in one of his books he decided to let down his historian persona and judge. He did this in a book titled British Historians and the West Indies, and totally condemned the attitudes of famous writers such as Thomas Carlyle for his racist attitudes. But in Carlyle's day this was considered normal. This is a good example of presentism.

Today we can't even write the "N" word in polite company, but in the 1960s it was very common. Similarly Mark E. Petersen's comments about blacks in the 1950s were not totally out of place. A good portion of American society would have agreed with him at that time, and segregation was in place until the 1960s, but today Petersen is considered totally racist by some. That is the fallacy of presentism, from the historian's point of view.