DiscussMormonism.com

Are we guilty of presentism when we condemn those mobs and vigilantes and purveyors of "frontier justice" that gave the early members of the Church such a hard time? These were, after all, simply men of their time, place, and culture. It would be intellectually dishonest to hold them to the enlightened standards of our day.

Right?







_________________

Dwight Frye wrote:Are we guilty of presentism when we condemn those mobs and vigilantes and purveyors of "frontier justice" that gave the early members of the Church such a hard time? These were, after all, simply men of their time, place, and culture. It would be intellectually dishonest to hold them to the enlightened standards of our day.

Right?

_________________

Excellent point. As you say, it was standard frontier justice for the time. We really can't expect those 19th century rednecks to be enlightened on religious freedom and the sex lives of prophets.

Yes, I guess that's a good point.

You know, that's a darn good point. I wish I'd thought of it.

Just like we can't use our presentist biases against Joseph Smith's destruction of a printing press, so we also cannot use our presentist biases against the detractors of that action.

I mean seriously, how were these poor, uneducated, 19th century frontier folk supposed to be able to accurately tell a lying charlatan who was taking sexual advantage of his followers from the guy whom the Creator of the Universe had actually authorized to secretly marry and have sex with so many women amongst his flock?

I mean, Joseph did lie about it many a time, and try to cover it all up with deception, secrecy, and outright bald-faced lying, but he was just doing that, in his weakness, to keep the Creator of the Universe's program "sacred", not secret. How were these 19th Century rubes supposed to perceive such a nuanced distinction?

I love this post. Dwight Frye ftw!

While were at it we may as well let the murderers Porter Rockwell and "Wild" Bill Hickman of the hook.

This is pretty funny, really.

The apologists would have us give Joseph Smith a pass on all this crap he did, saying we can't accurately judge him from our 21st Century position, because we can't really understand what it was like in the 19th Century.

Ok, so let's look at how Joseph Smith was judged by his 19th Century contemporaries.

Let's see, he was tarred and feathered, he was hauled into court a myriad of times, he was wanted in at least one state, maybe more, was essentially driven out of at least a couple of states, and finally was killed by a mob. Oh snap!

I guess his 19th Century contemporaries didn't think too much of his authorization by the Creator of the Universe to secretly marry and have sex with dozens of women. We must remember that these other women were the sisters, daughters, and even the wives (oh snap indeed!) of other men, who didn't appreciate Joseph meddling with them.

Nomomo wrote:While were at it we may as well let the murderers Porter Rockwell and "Wild" Bill Hickman of the hook.

True, but I'm sure the apologists already did that. We can also use the apologist's presentism argument to let the Roman soldiers off the hook for crucifying Christ. It seems barbaric in the comfort of our 21st century homes, but crucifiction was just a normal way of executing prisoners in 33AD. How were they to know that their actions, which were normal for the time perios, would be judged by the "enlightened" scholars thousands of years later. Whose to say you wouldn't enjoy whipping and beating that long haired hippy if you lived back then?

You're just jealous because you can't have sex with a 14 year old girl.