Joseph Smith and Presentism: Another Lame Defense Argument
I think an accepted standard is that you don't marry other women (14 or not) without the consent of your current wife. You also don't send people away on missions so that you can marry their wives (without the husband's consent). Which of these practices is sanctioned by God anywhere in the scriptures?
-
_rcrocket
Runtu wrote:I think an accepted standard is that you don't marry other women (14 or not) without the consent of your current wife. You also don't send people away on missions so that you can marry their wives (without the husband's consent). Which of these practices is sanctioned by God anywhere in the scriptures?
You're jumping around, pulling the JW stunt that Bachman talked about, injecting different issues.
Other than lex loci, which I contend is no standard for moral behavior in and of itself (is the death penalty immoral? is the refusal to impose the death penalty immoral? the answer can be affirmative in both cases depending upon your loci), what "standard" or generally accepted more in the nineteenth century prohibited polygamy and marrying a 14-year-old? I'm waiting for you to cite to philosophers, ethicists, the scriptures, anything.
P
-
_Rollo Tomasi
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4085
- Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm
Plutarch wrote:So, other than the law, what standard compels your argument?
Coercing Helen to marry Joseph to save her family.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
-
_Yoda
Runtu wrote:I think an accepted standard is that you don't marry other women (14 or not) without the consent of your current wife. You also don't send people away on missions so that you can marry their wives (without the husband's consent). Which of these practices is sanctioned by God anywhere in the scriptures?
True....take the story of David and Bathsheba as a prime example of God's lack of tolerance with this type of behavior.
-
_rcrocket
Runtu wrote:Morals are a slippery thing, aren't they? However, the argument was "presentism," that somehow Joseph's behavior was more acceptable then than it would be today. Clearly, such is not the case. That I gave examples to the contrary does not involve jumping around.
I take it that you are simply unwilling to respond to my request to identify the standard, rule, code of ethics upon which Bachman bases his argument. You choose to respond to deflect by jumping to irrelevant asides.
Last edited by _rcrocket on Mon Nov 06, 2006 6:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
_rcrocket
Runtu wrote:What's odd here is that we have a believing Mormon telling us that there are no moral standards of behavior. Weird.
I imply no such thing. I merely ask you, Bachman and everybody on this Board to identify any moral standard which condemns (1) polygamy and (2) marriage to a 14-year-old in the early 19th Century.
We have already discussed the standard of lex loci, the only one mentioned. Are you willing to base your standard of morality upon what some legislature defines? I suppose, then, that you endorse the concept that slavery was appropriate in the 19th Century as a moral imperative.
Come on, other than lex loci, what is the standard? Where can I read it?
I'll let Tal speak for himself. Let's restate:
The apologists tell us that if we find Joseph's behavior reprehensible, we are guilty of presentism.
We respond that the people of Joseph's time found it equally reprehensible, so the presentism argument is invalid.
We aren't arguing that there's some objective standard by which this is reprehensible (though I'd say the scriptures are pretty clear about this). What we are saying is that the argument that our distaste for his behavior is just our imposing a present morality on a past one. Not so.
The apologists tell us that if we find Joseph's behavior reprehensible, we are guilty of presentism.
We respond that the people of Joseph's time found it equally reprehensible, so the presentism argument is invalid.
We aren't arguing that there's some objective standard by which this is reprehensible (though I'd say the scriptures are pretty clear about this). What we are saying is that the argument that our distaste for his behavior is just our imposing a present morality on a past one. Not so.
-
_rcrocket
Runtu wrote:
(though I'd say the scriptures are pretty clear about this). What we are saying is that the argument that our distaste for his behavior is just our imposing a present morality on a past one. Not so.
You're getting closer. What scriptures may I read, please as to the two points Bachman raises?
Or, is your argument that it is self-evident that marrying a 14-year-old in the 19th century was wrong? That polygamy is wrong? Is that all this comes down to? Such shallow rhetoric as this?