Apologetic Argument: Joseph Smith's Man Love
Posted: Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:31 am
Proponents of Mormonism tend to take exception to the belief that Joseph Smith engaged in homosexual relations with Brigham Young. A typical gambit in opposing this belief would be proponents insisting that there is no evidence indicating that sexual trysts between the founder of Mormonism and one of his claimed successors ever happened.
However, absence of proof is not proof of absence. We can safely maintain belief when facts have not completely ruled out a possibility. If proponents of the LDS Church wish to claim that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did not have intimate manly relations with each other, then the burden is on them to conclusively disprove the possibility that such did not happen. I'd say they have their work cut out for them!
We can also look to "implicit hints" in the Book of Mormon suggesting that Joseph Smith was not opposed to sex between men. (For more on "implicit hints" in the Book of Mormon to support various theories, see Michael Ash: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/W ... _Alone.pdf).
Jacob 2:28
For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women.
Notice, it is not the chastity of men and women, but merely the chastity of women. Women can continue to be chaste even when men are engaged in sexual relations with each other. The Book of Mormon's failure to exclude man-on-man action when discussing chastity would be a reasonable basis for the Prophet inferring that such was not proscribed by the Lord.
Indeed, during the many sermons, writings (dictated or otherwise), scriptures, and revelations produced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, not a single one states that men should not have sex with other men. The silence is quite telling.
Moreover, Michael Quinn has written a book suggesting that same-sex activities were engaged in during early Mormon history. Michael Quinn is Mormon (although excommunicated), a historian, and gay, so he should know. If an expert in some field of study subscribes to the same belief that you are trying to substantiate, I would say that you are on pretty solid ground.
Joseph Smith, at any time, could have denied that he was involved in sexual liaisons with Brigham Young. And yet he never did. Not once in his life did he declare, "It is not so!" Surely we would expect someone who was not having sexual trysts with another man to deny it if given the opportunity. But Joseph did not.
Proponents will also sometimes get hung up on semantics, relying on fundamentalist, legalistic interpretations. Joseph Smith was not "gay," they may assert (without evidence, I might add). But even if we assume, for argument's sake, that Joseph Smith did not self-identify as "gay," that in no way precludes our belief that he was in a sexual relationship with Brigham Young. Joseph could have been simply bi-curious. Or perhaps he was just a man who had sex with men. The possibilities are endless, and quibbling over the trivial details does not invalidate our belief.
It is true that the modern LDS Church deplores same-sex sexual activity. However, the modern LDS Church also deplores plural marriage, which was practiced by the Prophet. Thus, the simple fact that the modern church does things differently than the Prophet in no way contradicts the belief that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were lovers. To assert otherwise is nothing but presentism.
The Prophet said that, "No man knows my history" and "you never knew my heart." True, but Brigham Young probably did, in an intimate, biblical way. And yet, why would Joseph feel compelled to say this, unless there was much more going on behind the scenes then we are currently aware of?
Proponents may continue to struggle in frustration at their inability to prove that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did not have it going on. But evidence may come forth someday to support our belief, and in the absence of proof to refute that belief, we are perfectly justified in maintaining it.
However, absence of proof is not proof of absence. We can safely maintain belief when facts have not completely ruled out a possibility. If proponents of the LDS Church wish to claim that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did not have intimate manly relations with each other, then the burden is on them to conclusively disprove the possibility that such did not happen. I'd say they have their work cut out for them!
We can also look to "implicit hints" in the Book of Mormon suggesting that Joseph Smith was not opposed to sex between men. (For more on "implicit hints" in the Book of Mormon to support various theories, see Michael Ash: http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Brochures/W ... _Alone.pdf).
Jacob 2:28
For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women.
Notice, it is not the chastity of men and women, but merely the chastity of women. Women can continue to be chaste even when men are engaged in sexual relations with each other. The Book of Mormon's failure to exclude man-on-man action when discussing chastity would be a reasonable basis for the Prophet inferring that such was not proscribed by the Lord.
Indeed, during the many sermons, writings (dictated or otherwise), scriptures, and revelations produced by the Prophet Joseph Smith, not a single one states that men should not have sex with other men. The silence is quite telling.
Moreover, Michael Quinn has written a book suggesting that same-sex activities were engaged in during early Mormon history. Michael Quinn is Mormon (although excommunicated), a historian, and gay, so he should know. If an expert in some field of study subscribes to the same belief that you are trying to substantiate, I would say that you are on pretty solid ground.
Joseph Smith, at any time, could have denied that he was involved in sexual liaisons with Brigham Young. And yet he never did. Not once in his life did he declare, "It is not so!" Surely we would expect someone who was not having sexual trysts with another man to deny it if given the opportunity. But Joseph did not.
Proponents will also sometimes get hung up on semantics, relying on fundamentalist, legalistic interpretations. Joseph Smith was not "gay," they may assert (without evidence, I might add). But even if we assume, for argument's sake, that Joseph Smith did not self-identify as "gay," that in no way precludes our belief that he was in a sexual relationship with Brigham Young. Joseph could have been simply bi-curious. Or perhaps he was just a man who had sex with men. The possibilities are endless, and quibbling over the trivial details does not invalidate our belief.
It is true that the modern LDS Church deplores same-sex sexual activity. However, the modern LDS Church also deplores plural marriage, which was practiced by the Prophet. Thus, the simple fact that the modern church does things differently than the Prophet in no way contradicts the belief that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were lovers. To assert otherwise is nothing but presentism.
The Prophet said that, "No man knows my history" and "you never knew my heart." True, but Brigham Young probably did, in an intimate, biblical way. And yet, why would Joseph feel compelled to say this, unless there was much more going on behind the scenes then we are currently aware of?
Proponents may continue to struggle in frustration at their inability to prove that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did not have it going on. But evidence may come forth someday to support our belief, and in the absence of proof to refute that belief, we are perfectly justified in maintaining it.