Sethbag wrote:'Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. My daughter Melissa, thou wast commanded by my servant Joseph to take him unto thee, that he may raise up seed unto me through thee in righteousness. This hast thou done, and it is counted unto thee for righteousness, for behold thou hast harkened unto my servant Joseph's counsel.
Behold, in my wisdom I have seen that wicked men lie in wait, yea, even ravenous wolves lie in wait to devour my servant Joseph, and to destroy him. I have seen that they would scheme to use the knowledge of that which thou bearest in thy womb to plot the destruction of my servant Joseph, and thereby bring about the overthrow of my kingdom on earth. Therefor I do not require you to bring forth that which thou bearest, but command thee to hearken to the counsel which Joseph hath delivered unto thee concerning this matter, that the schemes of wicked and designing men may be thwarted, for thou hast truly been tested, and hast offered up thyself as thou wast commanded. And I the Lord smile upon thee, and shall someday bring forth through thee countless generations in righteousness, according to thy desires.
Therefor, hearken unto the counsel which my servant Joseph hath given thee concerning this matter, and know that I, Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End, even Jesus Christ, have seen thy heart, and what thou hast offered up unto my servant Joseph by my word, and it is counted for righteousness before mine eyes. And so let it be done, amen."
As we're fond of pointing out to the apologists, possibility alone is of little value. What matters is not what's possible so much as what's probable.
Other than Sarah Pratt's late and biased recollection, we have nothing that says Smith procured abortions. Not even Bennett says this in his salacious expose, though he could easily have fingered another man as Smith's agent in this case. We thus lack evidence sufficient to establish Smith's procurement of abortions with anything like a decent probability.
And while it is possible for Smith to have reconciled the use of abortion, at least in limited cases, with his procreative rationale for polygamous sex, the reconciliation would have been risky and difficult, and isn't the most probable course of action that would follow on his use of such a procreative rationale, even if the rationale were merely a cover for his sexual desires.
So, frankly, the issue of possibility is a dead end. Given the present evidence, Smith's procurement of abortions for his wives is improbable. If additional evidence emerges, I'm certainly open to changing my own view on this, as on anything else. But I'm not holding my breath.
What do you see as the evidence for his procurement of abortions for his wives? I see Sarah Pratt's report, and the fact that he appears to have had so few 'plural children.' The former evidence I find quite dubious, for the reasons stated and other reasons as well. The latter I find more interesting. Smith's apparent lack of children by his plural wives is quite puzzling. Perhaps he wasn't able to make conjugal visits very often, and when he did the parties involved were under stress, which would have reduced the likelihood of conception--?
by the way, another thing I find dubious about the Bennett-as-Smith's-abortionist claim is that Bennett was only securely in Smith's confidence from the end of 1840 till about summer 1841, when Bennett was first caught with his pants down (so to speak) and Smith sent someone to investigate the man's past. (As an illustration that Bennett was not in Smith's full confidence thereafter, note that Bennett was not among those introduced to the endowment in May 1842.) Unless I am mistaken, the only single woman Smith married during the first half of 1841 was Louisa Beaman; and he only married perhaps one other single girl before Bennett fell from ecclesiastical grace altogether, in summer 1842. So, during Bennett's period of strong and even moderate confidence with Smith, most of Smith's wives could have hidden the fatherhood of their child quite easily without resorting to abortion--i.e., they had other husbands who would naturally be thought of as the fathers of Smith's children. In short, there were only one or two of Joseph Smith's wives to whom Bennett could have given an abortion, even had they conceived a child, which, given the paucity of children resulting even from his polyandrous relationships, is unlikely.
There would have been little, if any, need for Smith to use Bennett's services as an abortionist. Bennett himself, however, would have more likely been in need of such services; and Sarah Pratt's recollections probably reflect that, if indeed they reflect any real events at all.
DonBradley wrote:As we're fond of pointing out to the apologists, possibility alone is of little value. What matters is not what's possible so much as what's probable.
It is valuable to keep possibilities open. You shut those off when you mistakenly (in my opinion) judge Joseph Smith's character as being of a type that wouldn't stoop to an abortion cover-up, that it would have been too awkward for him, or when you accept Joseph Smith's stated motives (procreation) as his true ones. All of my comments have been directed towards this small part of your argument. Anyways, you earlier said you doubt Joseph Smith was very devout at all. Now we are just nitpicking, and having some fun, I think.
Other than Sarah Pratt's late and biased recollection, we have nothing that says Smith procured abortions. Not even Bennett says this in his salacious expose, though he could easily have fingered another man as Smith's agent in this case. We thus lack evidence sufficient to establish Smith's procurement of abortions with anything like a decent probability.
Your right. I can't say he probably did. I only say he might have, he would have, he could have, given the chance and the need. That's not a strong statement, is it?
I just don't want to be mistaken for an apologist. <wink>
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
DonBradley wrote:It would be fun to talk sometime. I don't know when I might ever get to Australia. Will you be coming to Zion?
Don't see my coming to Zion happening, Don. I haven't left Oz in 33 years, mainly because I've been raising and supporting children for 28 years. Still have the last one on my hands. I'll have to answer your other questions later as I have some electricians working on the house and I have to shut down the PC shortly. Withdrawal symptoms begin :(
Don, along with what the Dude said, I just wanted to point out that my little exercise in rationalizing an abortion isn't to show that it happened, but to demonstrate how easily it could have happened, in contradiction to your using Joseph Smith's profressed procreation rationale to justify his plural wives. Also, I think the procreation rationale is incredibly weak anyhow due to facts you've already mentioned, that is, that so many of Joseph Smith's plural "wives" were already married at the time Joseph Smith took them to himself, or at least took them to bed. For one thing, Joseph Smith's taking wives already married to other men seems to directly contravene the conditions laid out in section 132, and for another, the idea of Joseph Smith justifying plural marriage to an already-married woman whose husbands have not been shown to have been shooting blanks is incredibly weak. Would this woman not already have been in a position to have offspring? Was it that important that the women have Joseph Smith's offspring rather than their own husbands?
I don't know what to make of the paucity of Joseph Smith children from plural "marriages", but one thing I don't take from that is that Joseph Smith wasn't having sex with them. I find that to be incredibly unlikely. Something else must then, therefor, be at the root of it.
Mormonism ceased being a compelling topic for me when I finally came to terms with its transformation from a personality cult into a combination of a real estate company, a SuperPac, and Westboro Baptist Church. - Kishkumen
DonBradley wrote:by the way, isn't your rather absolute position on the truth of the Book of Mormon based on testimony? I'm uncertain from the above whether you see that as a good thing or a bad thing.
It is based primarily on testimony, but I also place a strong emphasis on internal evidences. Things that may seem "mere coincidence" to others, but certainly are not to me. Hugh Nibley has given many of these in his writings, but his name had been soiled through stereotyping and sarcasm. Admittedly, when it comes to external evidences even Nibley is somewhat disadvantaged here, and has speculated too much. When reading some of his writings on this aspect I often had the feeling it was sort of grasping at straws. Not quite connecting.
Yes, as foolish as it may seem to others (and remember Paul's words about this), testimony is the over-riding factor. It is not explainable, but it's a strong inner conviction, and for me the internal evidences (which include personal insights I have not found elsewhere), and, to use Joseph Smith's description, "pure intelligence" flowing into your mind, is enough for me to remain convinced. Those in the "great and spacious building" doing all the mocking will never understand this. It is primarily a "faith journey". And if you're wondering about the "derogatory" term "great and spacious building", just think of what believers have to put up with. The ridicule is relentless.
The Dude wrote:I just don't want to be mistaken for an apologist. <wink>
Relax, Dude, no chance of that <wink>.
I dunno. If I went over to RFM and announced that DNA only disproves the traditional LDS view of Native American origins, do you think they would dogpile on me like they did on Don?
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
The Dude wrote:I dunno. If I went over to RFM and announced that DNA only disproves the traditional LDS view of Native American origins, do you think they would dogpile on me like they did on Don?
If they did it to Simon Southerton, they'd do it to you. So I get your point.