Joseph Smith and Presentism: Another Lame Defense Argument

[_harmony]

Whether or not evoking the fallacy of presentism is warranted in the case of Joseph Smith is certainly a question worth considering. However, I don't believe Bachman's arguments are even relevant, for they fail to overlay the appropriate context on the issue.

An accurate understanding of Mormon claims would lead one to conclude that it is not 19th century mores that must be considered, but rather those of ancient Israel. Was the taking of multiple wives, and even marrying women barely beyond puberty considered acceptable in the time of the Israelite patriarchs, and throughout the ancient Near East? It was indeed. And this is the paradigm of Joseph Smith's "restoration," is it not? In any event, it is the paradigm within which Smith and his followers rationalized their own acceptance of the "principle."

That would be true, Vici, except that Joseph did not restore the ancient practice of polygamy as recorded in the Old Testament. Nowhere did the ancients legally take other men's wives. There was a section of ancient law devoted to plural marriage rules, and Joseph circumvented them repeatedly. Secrecy? Never. Lying about it? Never. Other men's wives? Never.

Joseph's brand of plural marriage was renegade from the start (which is one more reason to believe that it was not God-breathed, but came out of Joseph's uncontrolled libido).

[_rcrocket]

[color=blue]Plutarch

What you appear to be arguing now is that polygamy, and 37 year old Christian ministers men secretly "marrying" their 14 year old parishioners, were widely considered acceptable practices in 1843 America.

Can you possibly be serious? How old are you?

I am not "appearing" to argue anything.

I repeat my challenge. You are obviously incapable of meeting it. Rherotic won't convince me.

If I were entering my public library in 1835, what would I read to ascertain, other than the law of the land, that (1) marrying a 14-year-old is immoral and (2) polygamy is wrong?

Or, is your argument simply self-apparent, some inherent sense of right and wrong?

[Folks: Here is the subtext of what is going on here. You read so often in Tal Bachman's argument, if you can understand it, and not that I have read much of it I confess, that things are wrong because, well, they are wrong. But, being "wrong" involves some sort of "standard" against which to judge it. I suspect that "standard" ain't gonna be the scriptures because Tal don't believe in them. I suspect that "standard" ain't gonna be ethical writings of the day, because I doubt Bachman has ever read Paine or Voltaire. Being obtuse and verbose ain't gonna imply wisdom or learning.]

Plutarch

[_rcrocket]

Your criticism of "Smith's sexual behaviour" focused upon his marrying (1) a 14-year-old (2) in polygamy.

What is wrong with these two items, from the perspective of the 19th Century?

Read my quote from Helen above -- do you still believe that the feelings she expresses therein were out of the ordinary for those times? Methinks not. Your argument is absurd ... and you know it.

I have no doubt that polygamy was generally repugnant to Christians of the 19th Century. But why? Is there some basis for this repugnancy?

Moral relativism just is not basis for saying that something is wrong You can't convince me something is wrong by just telling me it is so. If it were known in the early 19th century that a man and woman were living together outside of marriage, they would be generally reviled. Today it is considered inoffensive.

God commands and men obey. He commanded polygamy.

I still have nothing from anybody on this post regarding the repugnancy of marrying in the early 19th century a 14-year old. Bachman keeps trying to avoid it by linking it to marrying her 37-year-old pastor and some such nonsense. Just focus upon the narrow question at hand.

[_rcrocket]

Well, you can't blame Sarah for how stupid her grandchildren are. We all make mistakes, and her grandchildren will have to pay for theirs the same as Sarah will have to pay for hers.

You are destitute of substance.

[_rcrocket]

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.

Using the apologists' logic, here are some other things which, if found reprehensible, make us guilty of "presentism":
---slavery
---human sacrifice
---Nazi-style eugenics
---public executions
---no voting for women
---open sewers
---the guillotine

Ahh. The refuge of a scoundrel in debate. Invoke the Nazis. I bow to such rhetoric.

Plutarch

[_harmony]

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.

Using the apologists' logic, here are some other things which, if found reprehensible, make us guilty of "presentism":
---slavery
---human sacrifice
---Nazi-style eugenics
---public executions
---no voting for women
---open sewers
---the guillotine

Ahh. The refuge of a scoundrel in debate. Invoke the Nazis. I bow to such rhetoric.

Plutarch

This isn't FAIR, Plutarch, where invoking Godwin's Law stops the conversation. Your comment borders on cowardice. Either answer his argument or concede that you can't. Pulling the Nazi red herring out won't work here.

[_harmony]

Well, you can't blame Sarah for how stupid her grandchildren are. We all make mistakes, and her grandchildren will have to pay for theirs the same as Sarah will have to pay for hers.

You are destitute of substance.

Actually, I'm quite substantial, but you wouldn't know it, since you wouldn't recognize substance if it dropped a brick on you.

[_rcrocket]

Well, you can't blame Sarah for how stupid her grandchildren are. We all make mistakes, and her grandchildren will have to pay for theirs the same as Sarah will have to pay for hers.

You are destitute of substance.

Actually, I'm quite substantial, but you wouldn't know it, since you wouldn't recognize substance if it dropped a brick on you.

Ah yes. My limits. I am painfully aware of them all.

Plutarch.

[_harmony]

Your criticism of "Smith's sexual behaviour" focused upon his marrying (1) a 14-year-old (2) in polygamy.

What is wrong with these two items, from the perspective of the 19th Century?

Read my quote from Helen above -- do you still believe that the feelings she expresses therein were out of the ordinary for those times? Methinks not. Your argument is absurd ... and you know it.

I have no doubt that polygamy was generally repugnant to Christians of the 19th Century. But why? Is there some basis for this repugnancy?

Because Victoria ruled the world, for the most part, and Victoria was a very strait-laced lady, and she had ideas about what was morally acceptable and what wasn't. Her influence was substantial enough to mold society's mores long after her death. They still mold society today, to a certain extent.

God commands and men obey. He commanded polygamy.

No, Joseph said God commanded it, but there were no witnesses to that revelation, and the lack thereof speaks right to the heart of the revelation, to the extent that it tore apart the heirarchy of the church. The debate still rages and the jury's still out.

[_rcrocket]

Because Victoria ruled the world, for the most part, and Victoria was a very strait-laced lady, and she had ideas about what was morally acceptable and what wasn't. Her influence was substantial enough to mold society's mores long after her death. They still mold society today, to a certain extent.

God commands and men obey. He commanded polygamy.

No, Joseph said God commanded it, but there were no witnesses to that revelation, and the lack thereof speaks right to the heart of the revelation, to the extent that it tore apart the heirarchy of the church. The debate still rages and the jury's still out.

Oh my gosh. So close but so ignorantly far away.

Queen Victoria's influence was not felt anywhere near 1835, years before her reign, or in 1843 for that matter. As a general matter, before Victorian times, sexual immorality was quite commonplace. One can see it in the lives of the founding fathers of this country, and explains to some extent the struggle many early members of the church had with changing their lives.

The jury is not out on revelations from God. You accept them or you don't. You don't. God commands you. Satan commends you.

Plutarch