Joseph Smith and Presentism: Another Lame Defense Argument

[_harmony]

He was doing what he felt he was commanded by God to do., which was totally contrary to accepted mores on polygamy.

Any legitimately logical reading of the same material yields several different takes on the same information, Ray. Like... Joseph did it because he could get away with it. He could snooker his wife, his friends, his followers, the general public and everyone else, so he did. Or... he knew he made the whole thing up with one intention: to get into as many beds as he could, and he never thought he'd get caught (and with unlimited power like he displayed in the Expositor incident, he had good reason to think he was safe). Or... he really didn't care if he got caught or not. He was so certain of his power, anything he said would be accepted as God's word, which would get him off the hook. Or... he honestly thought anything he wanted was what God wanted him to have, including children and other men's wives.

Your reading is only one of many. And it's one of the least likely, to be quite honest.

[_Tal Bachman]

So Ray, just to be clear:

It's your position that modern America, with its Gay Pride parades, with its condom dispensers in public lavatories, with its Cosmopolitans and Playboys and Penthouses and pay-per-view pornography both at home and in hotels, with its sex education in schoolrooms which portray homosexual relationships as simply "another lifestyle choice", with its widely available abortions and many high profile abortion rights supporters, is less sexually permissive than 1843 America? What else could explain your word "hardly"?

[_Ray A]

So Ray, just to be clear:

It's your position that modern America, with its Gay Pride parades, with its condom dispensers in public lavatories, with its Cosmopolitans and Playboys and Penthouses and pay-per-view pornography both at home and in hotels, with its sex education in schoolrooms which portray homosexual relationships as simply "another lifestyle choice", with its widely available abortions and many high profile abortion rights supporters, is less sexually permissive than 1843 America?

No, that is not my position, Tal. My position is that nothing has changed, but today it's just LEGAL! I'm sure London to a brick that this went on in the 19th century. Of course it wasn't done in the 19th century with the spohistication, technology and legality it is today. Again you're making modern comparisons but you seem to fail to understand that human nature has always been the same, and you can bet your bottom dollar (no pun intended) that homosexuality did not arise in the late 20th century. But what are we talking about, homosexuality or polygamy? There's a High Court judge in Australia, Justice Michael Kirby, who has been in a homosexual relationship for over 30 years. Problem is that this only became legal in Australia 5-8 years after he was in the relationship. Technically he was breaking the law, though at the time he was a prominent lawyer. It's the same with defacto relationships, frowned upon in the 1960s IF you admitted it! My maternal grandparents were born in the 19th century and were never married, they just never told anyone. My paternal grandfather, also born in the 19th century, had several "concubines", and at that time it was acceptable even if not legal. That's what I'm saying about mores. Mores is not something officially recorded, it can often be contrary to contemporary laws. Think of marijuana smoking. Is it legal in American yet? How many smoke?

[_Ray A]

Here is something else to consider. How many societies are now pushing to legalise polygamy? Make no mistake, it's on the agenda in many countries and with civil liberties groups. If it is eventually legalised, what will we make of Joseph Smith? Are we still going to say he was "immoral"? Or WAY ahead of his time?

[_Runtu]

Ray,

I would venture to say that for most of us, it's not so much the polygyny that is the problem, but the dishonesty and coercion involved. I don't think I'll ever consider Joseph ahead of his time for demanding Sarah Whitney in exchange for her family's place in the celestial kingdom.

[_Ray A]

Ray,

I would venture to say that for most of us, it's not so much the polygyny that is the problem, but the dishonesty and coercion involved. I don't think I'll ever consider Joseph ahead of his time for demanding Sarah Whitney in exchange for her family's place in the celestial kingdom.

You also have to consider Joseph Smith in his predicament, his context. HE, Joseph, felt, honestly believed, that God commanded him to do this contrary to the feelings of his contemporaries. He may have had some kind of "lying for the Lord" justification. But please try to understand this - he was not going contrary to what he felt God commanded him. The idea that it was all lust needs another thread and informed debate, with reference to Dr. Lawrence Foster's book on religion and sexuality in the 19th century. If you do not consider Joseph's context, you are not doing him justice, and that's what historians look at in regard to presentism. They try to understand actions in context. I personally reject polygamy as being necessary, but I try hard to understand Joseph Smith in proper historical context, and don't write him off as some kind of deviate.

[_rcrocket]

You might want to document your claim that sexual immorality was commonplace in America in the early 1800's. And you might want to define what you mean by sexual immorality. I don't want to tear apart your argument until you're a little clearer on what you're saying.

B. Russell, "Marriage and Morals".

Next time I ask you to document your claims, please don't tell me to "do my own homework" as you have in the past.

[_Runtu]

Ray,

I would venture to say that for most of us, it's not so much the polygyny that is the problem, but the dishonesty and coercion involved. I don't think I'll ever consider Joseph ahead of his time for demanding Sarah Whitney in exchange for her family's place in the celestial kingdom.

You also have to consider Joseph Smith in his predicament, his context. HE, Joseph, felt, honestly believed, that God commanded him to do this contrary to the feelings of his contemporaries. He may have had some kind of "lying for the Lord" justification. But please try to understand this - he was not going contrary to what he felt God commanded him. The idea that it was all lust needs another thread and informed debate, with reference to Dr. Lawrence Foster's book on religion and sexuality in the 19th century. If you do not consider Joseph's context, you are not doing him justice, and that's what historians look at in regard to presentism. They try to understand actions in context. I personally reject polygamy as being necessary, but I try hard to understand Joseph Smith in proper historical context, and don't write him off as some kind of deviate.

Ray,

First of all, I'm glad to see you here. I think we first met about 4 years ago when I was still an apologist on FAIR and you were having a lot of difficulties, which I hope have passed. I have had my share of difficulties in the last year, but things are better.

I don't believe Joseph's sexual practices were all about lust; on the contrary, I think the reasons for what he did are quite complex. The one thing I am sure of is that God did not command him to do any of that, and I am not convinced that he believed that God had commanded him to do so.

[_harmony]

You might want to document your claim that sexual immorality was commonplace in America in the early 1800's. And you might want to define what you mean by sexual immorality. I don't want to tear apart your argument until you're a little clearer on what you're saying.

B. Russell, "Marriage and Morals".

Next time I ask you to document your claims, please don't tell me to "do my own homework" as you have in the past.

Still stings, does it? And yet the discussion has gone on without you.

[_rcrocket]

Plutarch, not sure why you find this topic so baffling - no one else seems to. Perhaps it is the adopted instinct to try to remain a believing Mormon. This can do strange things to us. Let me try one more time to clarify this for you.

My comments are an attempt to answer one particular question: "Are modern critics of Joseph Smith's sexual conduct guilty of 'presentism'?" Many of your comments, however, attempt to respond to a very different question, namely, "By what moral standard, if any, should Joseph Smith's sexual conduct be criticized, either in 1843 or now?".

You see, Plutarch - the answer to the second question doesn't have anything necessarily to do with the answer to the first one, and yet you keep confusing them up, which very much appears to be a derailment attempt. Hence your revealing sentence:

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

That might be a good question, but of course, it is not the question being discussed here, is it? So again, why not start a thread devoted to it? (By the way, it is worth noting, if you did not notice, that the first half of your sentence reveals that you and I agree on the answer to the question informing this particular discussion).

I do find it notable that in all your puffery you still have been unable to articulate any "standard" or "rule" of the early 19th century which would make marriage to a 14-year-old wrong. Lots and lots (oh my gosh, will it never end) rhetoric.

P