Hi MG
MG 2.0 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:20 pm
Your post modern views are widely accepted and considered to be ‘true’ insofar as we are lacking in firm incontrovertible evidence of many things.
My statements were a simple cataloging of the state of the evidence that affects claims Joseph Smith had special access to knowledge. If the question we face is how probable Smith may have been to have used the claim for a restoration of a biblical practice of polygamy as cover for extra-marital sex, the reliability of the Bible as a periscope into the nature of the divine is highly relevant. As is the question of how reliable were his other claims regarding his authority and access to the divine. The evidence seems pretty conclusive. I could probably come up with 131 correspondences where Smith claimed something about the divine that made sense in the 1820-40s but is known to be wrong today. And we all know what that means for an argument, right?
But do we really need to waste time and energy on the question when we know for a fact he was initially hiding the practices from his lawful wife, Emma? And his history with her, sneaking her off in an elopement against her family's wishes, only to turn around and start cheating on her with their young live in help...yeah. Believe what you want about it.
As a post religious person I’m sure that the beliefs and practices of the CofJCofLDS are ‘interesting’ inherited artifacts from the practices and beliefs of others that have come before. And nothing more. This is your mantra, this is your belief.
Inherited? No. Social behaviors and beliefs like evolutionary traits are interesting for their response to change and the relative fitness they provide to their participants to succeed in the world. Mormonism is relatively young. It's undergone numerous changes and adaptations. It seems to be struggling to figure out how to keep being successful now. That's more than, "nothing". In some ways it could be described as everything.
Truth is, I think most of your belief adherence is composed of quasi-political moralizing where Mormonism provides a functional framework on which to stretch out you moral and political views. And those? Yeah, I think most of your political-moral views are inherited relics. Not from some common ancient ur-morality, mind you. They are even younger in origin than Mormonism.
Anyway, probabilities being what they are, and almost always the best we have since absolute truth is elusive, it's not really debatable if Smith was using his influence and religious authority to gratify his sexual appetite. Trouble for you is that comes into conflict with the value you derive from Mormonism as the frame on which you've stretched a conservative WASPish moral worldview.
That sucks, man. I feel for you.
