DiscussMormonism.com

Over on this thread last week, I watched BCSpace insist repeatedly and loudly that that there is no factual proof of what he calls "sexual polyandry" (i.e. intercourse with polyandrous wives), therefore Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages were sexless, and therefore kosher.

I submit that it's not wise for LDS apologists to object so loudly and strenuously to any alleged controversy, whether it be celestial sex with other men's wives or some other shenanigan. Even if they feel that the evidence (or lack thereof) is on their side, or appears to be, such an approach of flat-out denial works against their own apologetic interests and can easily backfire in the long run.

Here's why: The very act of stridently defending Smith or another leader against alleged acts such as sex with polyandrous wives implicitly acknowledges that such a thing would be scandalous and defamatory if true. This is bad apologetics because Smith might turn out to have done the act, in which case we all know the apologist would still be just as inclined and obligated to defend him anyway, just as strenuously. So why bother, then? If clear and irrefutable proof of the act were to come to light tomorrow, the BCSpace-style apologists would have to scramble to find a new tactic to justify the practice. They would have to persuade their audience that, while true, the so-called offense isn't actually scandalous at all, really, and explain how such a practice is doctrinally-sound and justified because blah, blah, blah.... And in doing so they have to counteract not only the critics, but also their own previous strenuous denials, which unwittingly condemned the practice by implication.

So if the the apologists were wiser, they would skip this whole risky self-defeating denial step and just start from justification.

We see this play out all the time with less-informed believers countering perceived "attacks." How many times have you heard of a believer confronted for the first time with the basic facts of Joseph Smith's polygamy? Invariably they insist that it's an anti-Mormon lie, because I've never hear that in church before, and/or because Joseph Smith was righteous and he would not have done such a thing, etc. This winds up blowing up in their face when they find out that he, in fact, did do those things, and they have unwittingly condemned him and/or the church with their attempted defense. [And in this scenario, the resultant burning feeling of being a total chump has led more than one person toward permanent disillusionment.]

But we have also watched this play out over time, repeatedly, with even the apologetic pros and scholars on various controversial subjects in Mormon history. For example, the whole money-digging and stone-scrying issue: The apologetic tactic used to be denial: "Nuh uh! No he didn't! Joseph was a prophet, he would never do that! You have no evidence for such scandalous accusations! This is tabloid nonsense! These are anti-Mormon lies!" Then as the evidence mounted and even people like Bushman began to admit that, yes, it appears from abundant evidence that the Smiths were, in fact, into money digging and divining, and Joseph was actually prosecuted for it, and he did use peep stones that were later used as the primary method to translate the Book of Mormon, the apologetic line then changed from one of denial to one of justification. It then became "So what? Of course Joseph did those things, that's what we expect, and it served as a training ground to bring him to prophet-hood, and doesn't it warm your testimony to see how the Lord used these things for his righteous purposes?" etc. Unfortunately, the old vehement denials remain on record, undermining the new positive spin. If they had been smart, they would have started from the position of justification from the beginning, and skipped the denial stage.

We're seeing this play out now somewhat with Book of Abraham apologetics. The defenses have evolved from insisting on literal translation from Chandler papyri, with hypotheses about about long scrolls, and missing portions, and entire missing scrolls, and mnemonics, and mysterious Jewish redactors, and a dozen other grassy-knoll type theories, to saying more and more that it doesn't matter if Joseph didn't literally translate the Book from the papyri, even if he mistakenly thought he was doing so (and isn't it inspiring how such an imperfect man can be a tool in God's hands?), but it's a revelation, and that's what matters, and it's true regardless of its origin, just pray about it and get that warm feeling, etc. Again, if they had started out deprecating the importance of literal translation from the outset and focused on the revelation aspect, they could have skipped a lot of the embarrassing denials and posturing.

(Granted, this last one is a tough one, since Joseph himself started out from the get-go insisting that the Book of Abraham was a translation from Egyptian hieroglyphics on papyri found with mummies in his possession, and even printed incriminating source materials in the form of facsimiles. That was easy enough to get away with in a pre-Egyptology age, when the hieroglyphics could have said anything, but it was really risky in the long run. Let that be a cautionary tale, apologists.)

TL;DR: Skip the denial phase and go straight to justification to streamline the process and avoid unsightly back-pedaling.

Saw Skooh wrote:Over on this thread last week, I watched BCSpace insist repeatedly and loudly that that there is no factual proof of what he calls "sexual polyandry" (i.e. intercourse with polyandrous wives), therefore Joseph Smith's polyandrous marriages were sexless, and therefore kosher.

Unfortunately for bcspace, section 132 makes it clear that plural marriages were only sanctioned for the purpose of multiply and replenishing the earth, therefore sexless plural unions were....well....absolutely not kosher.

Apologist's will deny there is a problem right up to the point where it is evidentially irrefutable, at that point they will try to justify what they had previously denied was the case.

So why bother, then? If clear and irrefutable proof of the act were to come to light tomorrow, the BCSpace-style apologists would have to scramble to find a new tactic to justify the practice.

Not at all. I can handle sex within plural marriage. What's unwise is for the critics to lie about it, to pretend that "something MUST have happened" in light of the fact of no evidence and other evidence trending away from things such as sexual polyandry.

Bazooka wrote:
Unfortunately for bcspace, section 132 makes it clear that plural marriages were only sanctioned for the purpose of multiply and replenishing the earth, therefore sexless plural unions were....well....absolutely not kosher.

Apologist's will deny there is a problem right up to the point where it is evidentially irrefutable, at that point they will try to justify what they had previously denied was the case.

We also have affidavits of at least 13 women who were married to Joseph and claim there were "marital relations." It should be noted that these women remained faithful LDS.

There really is no doubt Joseph enjoyed marital relations with all or most of his plural wives. The evidence, including many of his wives' testimony, is really beyond doubt.

The reality is that Joseph Smith was having marital relations with many, many women. The vast majority of historians and apologists agree. Bcspace is really outside looking in on this issue.

There really is no doubt Joseph enjoyed marital relations with all or most of his plural wives.

I have not denied that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with some of his wives. Your most or all claim is completely unsupported and is based solely on a desire to smear the Church or justify your own reasons for not believing.

bcspace wrote: I have not denied that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with some of his wives.

bcspace, I would like to know where I can objectively determine that the Lord wanted Joseph Smith to have sex with some of his wives, but not all of them. Also, I would like to know where I can find the criteria are that Joseph Smith followed in ascertaining which of his plural wives he would have sex with, and which ones he would not. This will go a long way in explaining why it is not a justified inference that Joseph Smith generally had sex with the females he purported to marry.

The more specific references you have to D&C 132 and other official doctrine, the better.

Thanks in advance.

bcspace, I would like to know where I can objectively determine that the Lord wanted Joseph Smith to have sex with some of his wives, but not all of them.

I'm still waiting for concrete evidence of sexual polyandry as is the claim.

bcspace wrote:

bcspace, I would like to know where I can objectively determine that the Lord wanted Joseph Smith to have sex with some of his wives, but not all of them.

I'm still waiting for concrete evidence of sexual polyandry as is the claim.

No, you don't dispute that he had sex with "some" of his plural wives, remember? So where can I objectively determine the criteria by which Joseph Smith decided which of his plural wives he had sex with, and which he did not?

This would include any criteria enjoining him from having sex with one of his plural wives who was already legally married to another man. That way, you can demonstrate that it is not a justified interest that he had sex with his plural wives in general, in the absence of any injunction to the contrary.

Again, thanks in advance. And as much revelation and official doctrine setting forth these criteria as possible, if you please.

bcspace wrote:
I'm still waiting for concrete evidence of sexual polyandry as is the claim.

And I'm still waiting for concrete evidence of Book of Mormon civilizations and horses. Absence of evidence is not evidence of abstinence.

Or in the polyandry case is absence of evidence evidence of abstinence?