Page 1 of 5
A gem from the FAIRLDS site
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:06 pm
by _Runtu
Thanks to mms for pointing this out. The following is from a discussion of the morality of polygamy and Joseph's denial of practicing it.
Like obedience to civil law, honesty and integrity are foundational values to the Church of Jesus Christ. Indeed, the success which critics have in troubling members of the Church with tales of polygamy and its deceptive circumstances is, in a way, a compliment to the Church. If the Church as an institution typically taught its members to have a casual disregard for the truth, a discovery that Joseph Smith had deceived others about polygamy would not be troubling to most. But, because the Church (contrary to the suggestions of some critics) really does teach its members to aspire to live elevated lives of moral rectitude, the discovery that deception was involved with polygamy can come as something of a shock. Disillusionment can ensue if we follow the critics in assuming that because Joseph occasionally misled others in this specific context, he must therefore have lied about everything else, and been absolutely unworthy of trust.
But, as we have seen, the practice of polygamy must be viewed in its moral context as an act of religious devotion which the Saints were unwilling to forego simply because the state or society disapproved.
As I said on the other board, this is beyond parody.
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:12 pm
by _John Larsen
My main interest in apologists is their mind bending world view that I find very strange both from my current world view and my former view as an active member of the Church.
John
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:13 pm
by _Gadianton
That's almost as bad as the pre Maxwell institute paper I got. Not even sure what to say. Who wrote this? Maybe I'll have to try and put in a question to my friend.
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:13 pm
by _Runtu
John Larsen wrote:My main interest in apologists is their mind bending world view that I find very strange both from my current world view and my former view as an active member of the Church.
John
The scary thing for me is that I engaged in those very same kinds of morality-fudging exercises when I was a believing member.
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:13 pm
by _Who Knows
Beautiful! Who wrote that?
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:16 pm
by _Runtu
Who Knows wrote:Beautiful! Who wrote that?
One Gregory L. Smith, M.D. Is that "grego"?
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:32 pm
by _skippy the dead
Where is it being discussed (please don't make me read all the threads there - I'm ever so slightly hung over today and that wouldn't help at all).
Re: A gem from the FAIRLDS site
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:33 pm
by _karl61
Runtu wrote:Thanks to mms for pointing this out. The following is from a discussion of the morality of polygamy and Joseph's denial of practicing it.
Like obedience to civil law, honesty and integrity are foundational values to the Church of Jesus Christ. Indeed, the success which critics have in troubling members of the Church with tales of polygamy and its deceptive circumstances is, in a way, a compliment to the Church. If the Church as an institution typically taught its members to have a casual disregard for the truth, a discovery that Joseph Smith had deceived others about polygamy would not be troubling to most. But, because the Church (contrary to the suggestions of some critics) really does teach its members to aspire to live elevated lives of moral rectitude, the discovery that deception was involved with polygamy can come as something of a shock. Disillusionment can ensue if we follow the critics in assuming that because Joseph occasionally misled others in this specific context, he must therefore have lied about everything else, and been absolutely unworthy of trust.
But, as we have seen, the practice of polygamy must be viewed in its moral context as an act of religious devotion which the Saints were unwilling to forego simply because the state or society disapproved.
As I said on the other board, this is beyond parody.
I sort of see the point of the Church putting the image of a righteous people who don't lie, are faithful to one wife. That's why it's so troubling to see what really occured. The last sentence is kind of crazy as they did forego polygamy because the state and society disapproved. To really understand what they gave up is like asking the saints today to give up temple worship or the sacrament. That is how important polygamy was to them. Imagine the saints today giving up temple worship or the sacrament to get statehood or to prevent the government from abolishing the Church.
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:36 pm
by _Runtu
skippy the dead wrote:Where is it being discussed (please don't make me read all the threads there - I'm ever so slightly hung over today and that wouldn't help at all).
It's on a thread about the date of section 132.
Posted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 6:37 pm
by _Mister Scratch
Runtu wrote:Who Knows wrote:Beautiful! Who wrote that?
One Gregory L. Smith, M.D. Is that "grego"?
No, I believe there is a poster who goes by "Greg Smith." And wow... What an embarrassment! I'm surprised that there is actually a name attached. Often, it is difficult to determine who has authored what, and in fact anonymous authorship seems to be an important aspect of some parts of FARMS scholarship. I'm thinking in particular of their bogus claims about the so-called "Florida Horse." Many of us tried to get DCP to tell us who had authored this tidbit on the FARMS website, but he refused to tell us, insisting that we contact them via email. (To be fair, at one point The Good Professor offered up Matt Roper as the possible author....)