Joseph Smith and Presentism: Another Lame Defense Argument

[_Ray A]

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.

All the monikers confuse me, so I don't know who is who. I've always gone by my name Ray A, which is an abbreviation of my real name.

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.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you'd need to present convincing evidence to persuade others. I am not taking Joseph's word, but as Dr. Foster and others have argued, you'd have to be an absolute fool to instigate polygamy to "get a bit on the side", especially if it costs you your life! That doesn't discount delusion, and my point is not apologetic. The point is not so much whether God commanded him, what what he honestly believed. That's very difficult for objective historians to ascertain. I am against mind-reading and Brodie-type psychobiographies.

[_Runtu]

The age of the bride is secondary. It's the dishonesty and spiritual coercion that are important. Are you not aware of 19th century laws or mores prohibiting sexual relations with another person who is not one's spouse? Are you saying that it was legally permissible to have sex with 14 year olds behind your wife's back?

And they say we are the ones who have lost our moral bearings.

[_Ray A]

And they say we are the ones who have lost our moral bearings.

You have to be careful here of injecting subjective judgements to historical contexts. If you are seeking justification - forget about history.

[_Runtu]

Ray

Sorry for the gratuitous poke at morality. As I said, I do not believe that Joseph practiced polygamy just to get a little on the side. That's a major oversimplification.

And back in the day I was Johnny_cat on the FAIR boards.

[NorthboundZax]

Plutarch and Ray

Listen - we need better stuff here. Plutarch seems to think I've invented out of whole cloth the idea that Joseph Smith's sexcapades were contrary to the mores of 1843 America, which of course is not true, and Ray seems to think that somehow or other we ought to be talking about strict legalities, which of course is largely irrelevant to whether modern critics are guilty of "presentism". Come on you guys.

The question is, is modern criticism of Joseph Smith's sexual behaviour attributable to an unfair habit of moderns judging him not by the standards of his own context, but by the standards of ours? I suggest that if this were the case, a bit of research would reveal that Smith's contemporaries did not judge such sexual behaviour harshly (because if they did, then moderns would not be unfairly convicting a man who was only doing what others in his milieu did, and thus would not be guilty of presentism). Americans, as it happens, were horrified by Mormon polygamy, and along with the desire to abolish slavery, the widespread desire to abolish it gave rise to the Republican Party, which (evidencing the outrage many Americans felt at both) went from non-existence to a winning party of a presidential race, in under a decade. And it is all the more testament to the horror with which many Americans viewed what they called the "twin relics of barbarism", polygamy and slavery, that the Republican Party achieved this feat in an age with no radio, no TV, no airplanes for transporting candidates around, and no internet.

By the way, Plutarch, you being so ignorant of American history that you could actually believe that Smith's contemporaries were not horrified by such sexual conduct as he practiced, does not impose on me the burden of proving to you they were, anymore than I denying that John Howard is the prime minister of Australia imposes on you the burden of proving to me he really is. Everyone reading this, except apparently you, knows that Mormon polygamy was wildly at odds with contemporary societal sexual/marital customs, and therefore provoked outraged reactions, and they know it because it is true, and the evidences of it are so overwhelming and ubiquitous. The most obvious place to start in showing this would be the recollections of Joseph's plural wives themselves, many of whom admit to originally being horrified by the suggestion.

Since, judging by your comments, this topic seems be new terrain for both of you, I suggest you check out a book that official church historian Leonard Arrington recommended as "superb". It has also been consistently on sale at the official church bookstore, Deseret Books, since its publication two decades ago, and also won the Mormon History Association Book of the Year Award. It's entitled "Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith". Here's a link so you can order it if you want: http://deseretbook.com/store/product?sku=2708518. Another good one is "Mormon Polygamy", also on sale at Deseret Books: http://deseretbook.com/store/product?sku=1799622 .

Good luck.

[_Runtu]

Not the best apologetics, is it, to argue that it's up to critics to prove that in 1840s America polygamy was frowned upon by society and its laws. And the stunning thing for me is to hear Mormons tell me that by finding sexual behavior outside of legal marriage abhorrent, I'm guilty of some sort of prejudiced moral relativism. It's surreal, I tells ya.

[_Tal Bachman]

Yeah Runtu, it's surreal, and embarrassing. Ah well...perhaps religions get the apologetics they deserve.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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

I suspect natural law. As I pointed out above, what was repugnant to Jacob was still repugnant to Helen over 2,000 years later, so it seems to have been around a long time.

God commands and men obey.

Then why would either Jacob or Helen consider the practice repugnant?

He commanded polygamy.

Questionable.

I still have nothing from anybody on this post regarding the repugnancy of marrying in the early 19th century a 14-year old.

I gave you the victim's own words, as well as Jacob's over 2,000 years ago.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

Query: Did Queen Victoria rule over Jacob? Hmm, I wonder why he made such a big deal about "chastity of women," since Her Majesty wouldn't do it for another 2,000 years. A man "ahead of his time," I guess.

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

True. But the key is whether a revelation is from God ... or from man.

[_rcrocket]

Listen - we need better stuff here. Plutarch seems to think I've invented out of whole cloth the idea that Joseph Smith's sexcapades were contrary to the mores of 1843 America, which of course is not true . . . .By the way, Plutarch, you being so ignorant of American history that you could actually believe that Smith's contemporaries were not horrified by such sexual conduct as he practiced,

Since, judging by your comments, this topic seems be new terrain for both of you, I suggest you check out a book that official church historian Leonard Arrington recommended as "superb". It has also been consistently on sale at the official church bookstore, Deseret Books, since its publication two decades ago, and also won the Mormon History Association Book of the Year Award. It's entitled "Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith".

Nothing like recasting my argument to say something I never said. Your vague verbosity simply overwhelms you.

As far as being ignorant, well, I confess to being plenty ignorant about a lot of things; being a published [which does not mean the same as "professional"] historian and expert in my professional field helps me see the limits of my knowledge at all times.

Do I really have to get the book from Deseret Book? Why won't my bookshelf suffice, along with my notes of some of the author's footnotes?