Tal Bachman wrote: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 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 Books? Why won't my bookshelf suffice, along with my notes of some of the author's footnotes?
You skimmed right over the important part, P. Typical. Read the paragraph about the Republican Party again. You know... twin relics of barbarism, slavery and polygamy and all that?
The really ironic thing is... the Mormon candidate for president is Republican. I can't wait until that little gem hits the press.
Tal Bachman wrote: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 historian and expert in my professional field helps me see the limits of my knowledge at all times.
What the...? I thought you were an attorney? Are you saying that you're a professional historian, too?
harmony wrote:You skimmed right over the important part, P. Typical. Read the paragraph about the Republican Party again. You know... twin relics of barbarism, slavery and polygamy and all that?
The really ironic thing is... the Mormon candidate for president is Republican. I can't wait until that little gem hits the press.
I think the caution of being wary of presentism is appropriate in some conversations, as Ray noted above. However, I have real problems with the manner in which many of the FAIRites use the term in attempts to negate criticism. One problem is this: why is it unrealistic to expect that, if there really is a God, if that God really does communicate directly to human beings, if that God really does change the hearts of said human beings and direct them to a higher path, a higher law, ie, God's law - then we can expect to see different behavior from those who claim to speak directly to this God and even be ordained to lead his "one true church"?
To use another example, sure, racism was prevalent in the 1800s, even among those who disdained slavery. But does that mean it is inappropriate to expect a prophet of God, one who directly speaks to God, who can communicate with God so clearly that God has chosen him to lead his One True Church, to embrace a higher law, one taught to him by God Almighty Himself?? God isn't a racist, is he? So why not teach his prophet not to be a racist, even if the rest of the world were racists and considered it normal?
Actually there are examples of people who DO defy the trends of the day, and DO embrace a higher law, whether or not they claim to be inspired by God. So it is not impossible for human beings, in general, to defy social norms of the day in favor of what they perceive to be a higher law. So why is it an unrealistic expectation for an LDS prophet to do so?
When this point is brought up to FAIRite apologists, normally they respond by pointing to the prophets in the Bible, to show they were just as bad as Joseph Smith. While this may work with someone who believes the Bible is the real word of God in some way, it certainly doesn't convince someone like me, who doesn't even believe in a god. (partly for this reason, as well as many others - ie, that human beings who claim to have been "touched" by God in some way tend to behave just like human beings who have not been "touched" by God, so the world unfolds exactly as it would if there were no GOD at all) But certainly this is why, in my opinion, apologists tend to prefer to discuss issues like this with Christians, and not atheists or deists. If a God does exist, and if that God directly communicates with and "changes" human hearts in some way, it is entirely appropriate to expect his "prophets" to demonstrate the ability to transcend social mores of the day in a trend that demonstrates qualities we would expect from "God" to begin with.
In regards to the specific example of money-digging, another important point can be made aside from the con-man argument. That is that Joseph Smith used the same methodology to communicate with God and translate the Book of Mormon as he used to "see" treasures hidden in the earth. (what a coincidence that the author of the Book of Mormon also believed in "slippery treasures", eh?) So it is fair to ask believers if they believe that this was a reliable methodology when it was used to find treasures. The evidence is clear that it did not work. Most believers would never admit to believing that one could find "slippery treasures" by looking at a stone in a hat. (full disclosure - when I asked this question a while ago on FAIR, one believer DID say he believed it must have worked, and I praised him for his consistency, which irritated other believers who were too sophisticated to even CONSIDER that it may have "worked". See how the human mind compartmentalizing issues? Believers view it as acceptable to think that looking at a stone in a hat worked for Joseph Smith to translate the Book of Mormon because it involved a religious claim, but are too sophisticated to consider that it worked for a nonreligious claim. This demonstrates how human beings tend to "think" about religious claims in an entirely different way than they think about nonreligious claims)
The hard fact is, in my opinion, that apologists are truly in a corner. There is so much information available that leads reasonable, nonbiased people to conclude that the basic claims of the LDS church are fallacious, that instead of focusing on those claims themselves, they prefer to focus on finding a way to discredit the critic instead. In my casual observation, it is people like juliann who are popularizing this movement/trend, which is sad for more more intelligent apologists who are willing to address the actual issue. Juliann (and Wade, of course, who is even more extreme in this manifestation) automatically attempts to shift the conversation to discrediting critics instead of engaging in the actual issue. Critics ought to be ignored because they are disgruntled people who have altered their own history in order to justify their apostasy. Critics ought to be ignored because they are bigots or fundamentalists. Critics ought to be ignored because.... (fill in the blank).
heh, when I posted my first reply, I didn't notice there were four MORE pages of discussion after the first one...
God commands and men obey. He commanded polygamy.
Well, hard reality is that "God commands" through a human voice. So whether or not "God" commanded it, or anything, is open to discussion, and not a given FACT as you portray.
Aside from that inconvenient reality, this whole "God commands and men obey" - even when God is commanding something totally contrary to the individual's natural moral instincts and even when God is commanding something that violates his FORMER commandments - really portrays "God" as nothing more than a mafia boss, or a gang leader, who orders followers to engage in disgusting acts as a loyalty test. The real MORALITY is nothing more than LOYALTY to one's leader, to the point where one will do whatever the leaders says, even if it violates all natural morality and the past commands of the leader. Will you do as the leader says, no matter what???
Even if that kind of supernatural being/God existed, why in the WORLD would anyone want to worship it?????
And why would any God want to CULTIVATE that trait in human beings, given the fact that it is always HUMAN BEINGS who are figuring out what "God commands"???? Surely God would be smart enough to figure out that this really translates into blind loyalty to the HUMAN LEADER who issues "God's commands"???? One of the most DANGEROUS realities of human life is those who are willing to be blindly loyal to a human leader issuing "God's commands". They are willing to violate any law of natural morality. They are willing to DO ANYTHING for that leader who speaks for God. They will lie, steal, and kill for God.
Anyone, even believers, should find that frightening.
Are you ever going to admit that the fact that the very people who believed that God was commanding them to practice polygamy in early LDS history state themselves that they found the idea morally repugnant is evidence enough that critics are not engaging in "presentism" when they ALSO find the practice morally repugnant?
Good grief man, have some integrity and at least concede that obvious point. I apologize if you have already done so and I missed it.
I did read it. It is weird but par for the course in LDS apologetics. Apologists often try to find a point that they believe they can build a case against, even if that point is minor and not relevant to the larger point the critic is making. So Plutarch believes he found a flaw - whether or not marrying a fourteen year old would be viewed as morally repugnant in the nineteenth century. In his focus on that one point, he ignores the larger point of the entire thread, and hence, begins to produce comments that appear weird and distorting by people who are reading his comments in the context of the larger point of the thread.
It is indeed weird to insist that nineteenth century people would not have found Joseph Smith behavior morally repugnant, for the many reasons that have been given on this thread. But I doubt that is really what Plutarch believes - he is just hoping that if he discredit one minor point, while ignoring the larger point, then he can discredit everything critcis say.
It's an act of desperation engaged in by people who are cornered.