What if Joseph Smith was just an Alpha Ape in tune with Nature?

[Free Ranger]

After many years studying darwinian evolution and the science of sex, love, and dating; and male and female sexual dynamics, I've started to wonder if Joseph Smith was just a product of nature?

Nature's rules encourage that which perpetuates the growth of the species. All else is folly from life's perspective. Joseph's mythology could be viewed as a successful system of memes. Sue Blackmore changed her mind about religious memes being merely mind viruses, see:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... virus-mind

The leaf insect and a shape-shifting octopus, and other living creatures use deception in order to survive and reproduce. So was Joseph Smith's religious mythology another successful memetic adaptation?

The fact is, all of religion could be seen this way: religion as that which helps the species perpetuate its DNA. For example, early tribes that adopted war gods might have been more confident in battle.

Most of the science I have read on the topic of sex and dating, concludes that we are not a naturally monogamous species but develop feelings of romantic love that last for about 4 years which nature causes in order to motivate the male to stick around long enough for the infant to grow to be a toddler. If anything, we are designed to be serially monogamous. No, I'm not advocating cheating on your spouse or not being monogamous. I'm simply pointing out what most of the scientific literature says. And yes we can ignore our natural programming and be monogamous just as we ignore our primitive instincts to kill someone who angers us because we control ourselves and choose to obey the law of the land.

The scientific literature also points to the fact that a high-status male will be attractive to most females. Lower status males are simply ignored by the most attractive females. I actually experienced this myself as a young Mormon off my mission, being tall, muscular, charismatic and good looking I garnered a lot of the attention from the young single adult women. I remember being kind of surprised by this because other males were better candidates as they came off as more pious and more likely to take them to the temple whereas I remained aloof and was often irreverent and joked about never getting married and being a menace to society forever. This was always odd to me because I was shy, quiet, and insecure in Middle School. But the Mormon mission helped me develop an extroverted and confident persona.

So back to Joseph Smith, from a nontheistic science-based perspective, if Joseph Smith was attracting all these females and many people at that time spoke of Joseph Smith as being tall and good-looking and charismatic, then wasn't it simply natural that he would gain access to multiple females?

According to my research, Smith often got consent from the parents of the young women, and they were of legal age at that time. The only criticism I think you can make, from a nontheistic scientific perspective, is to complain that Joseph Smith was much older than some of his teenage brides. One could argue that most of the teenage brides at that time were marrying other teenage young men or men in their early twenties. But based on my research there were cases of older men marrying teenage brides and this was legal at that time. And if you look through history you will find that it has always been common for older men to mate and/or marry younger women.

So on what moral grounds can we actually judge Joseph Smith? I guess I'm speaking mostly to the agnostics and atheists here.

Because as I see it, Smith was just simply a high-status alpha ape in tune with Nature. I think he just clothed the energy of his high-status alpha maleness (that nature naturally produced) in religious language. So that just like among alpha apes of multiple ape species (including us humans), the top male has access to multiple females, Joseph Smith was just yet another alpha ape. I mean how many of us really complain about Hugh Hefner, or movie stars, or top athletes having access to multiple females? I think many of us men, if we are brutally honest, somewhat envy them. And wish to be like them. Or maybe I'm just morally depraved? LOL. But I mean think about it, why do most of the movies that us men like to watch are about an alpha male having access to multiple women and conquering his enemies?

LIFE simply seeks to grow and expand and thrive, and it does this in all kinds of ways that our "modern moralities" may find distasteful. Some female insects will mate with a male and then kill the male. Some insects will paralyze another insect (acting now as host) and implant it's offspring which then are born and consume the living host alive! Male lions that want to mate with another female lion (who just gave birth to cubs), will try to eat the cubs, so that more attention will be given to his future cubs. It is what it is.

So from an amoral Lifeward perspective, D&C 132 would just be a memetic reflection of Nature's reality, wherein a high-status male is writing to his puritan wife (who does not want to share him because of her competing feminine nature), and so Joseph intuitively draws authority from the Hebrew God himself, and the Hebrew Bible and the former high-status males like Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon. And since Life is all about growth and expansion and thriving, section 132 speaks of the continuation of the "lives" through the male "seed" in order to bear the souls of men through multiple brides.

Thoughts?

[Res Ipsa]

Hi Free Ranger, and welcome.

I identify as an atheist, if forced to identify my stance toward religion.

You've obviously given this quite a bit of thought and articulated your hypothesis clearly. The problem, as I see it, is what is referred to as the "naturalistic fallacy:"

The naturalistic fallacy is an informal logical fallacy which argues that if something is ‘natural’ it must be good. It is closely related to the is/ought fallacy – when someone tries to infer what ‘ought’ to be done from what ‘is’.

https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer- ... c-fallacy/

I think you recognize the problem when you qualify your analysis with this:

No, I'm not advocating cheating on your spouse or not being monogamous. I'm simply pointing out what most of the scientific literature says. And yes we can ignore our natural programming and be monogamous just as we ignore our primitive instincts to kill someone who angers us because we control ourselves and choose to obey the law of the land.

But having recognized people as moral agents who can make choices that contradict their natural impulses and that it could be morally wrong to follow one's natural impulses, it seems to me like you forget those important points as your analysis continues. Joseph Smith is a moral agent who can make choices that contradict his natural impulses. People's natural impulses aren't necessarily moral. So, that Smith may have followed his natural impulses doesn't mean he is immune from criticizing his failure to make different choices.

For example, one can certainly make the case that Smith used the power and prestige of his self-designated status as prophet of God to pressure and/or entice young women into having sex with him. Or that he did the same with married women without the knowledge or consent of their husbands. You can even make the case that he sent at least one man on a foreign mission so he could have sex with his wife. All these are moral choices that are open to criticism based on any number of moral grounds: misuse of power, coercion, dishonesty, breach of trust, etc.

So, as I see it, the fact that Smith's behavior can be described as "natural" does not immunize his choices from moral criticism or excuse him from otherwise applicable moral standards.

I hope that gives you the feedback you were looking for.

[Rivendale]

After many years studying darwinian evolution and the science of sex, love, and dating; and male and female sexual dynamics, I've started to wonder if Joseph Smith was just a product of nature?

Nature's rules encourage that which perpetuates the growth of the species. All else is folly from life's perspective. Joseph's mythology could be viewed as a successful system of memes. Sue Blackmore changed her mind about religious memes being merely mind viruses, see:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... virus-mind

The leaf insect and a shape-shifting octopus, and other living creatures use deception in order to survive and reproduce. So was Joseph Smith's religious mythology another successful memetic adaptation?

The fact is, all of religion could be seen this way: religion as that which helps the species perpetuate its DNA. For example, early tribes that adopted war gods might have been more confident in battle.

Most of the science I have read on the topic of sex and dating, concludes that we are not a naturally monogamous species but develop feelings of romantic love that last for about 4 years which nature causes in order to motivate the male to stick around long enough for the infant to grow to be a toddler. If anything, we are designed to be serially monogamous. No, I'm not advocating cheating on your spouse or not being monogamous. I'm simply pointing out what most of the scientific literature says. And yes we can ignore our natural programming and be monogamous just as we ignore our primitive instincts to kill someone who angers us because we control ourselves and choose to obey the law of the land.

The scientific literature also points to the fact that a high-status male will be attractive to most females. Lower status males are simply ignored by the most attractive females. I actually experienced this myself as a young Mormon off my mission, being tall, muscular, charismatic and good looking I garnered a lot of the attention from the young single adult women. I remember being kind of surprised by this because other males were better candidates as they came off as more pious and more likely to take them to the temple whereas I remained aloof and was often irreverent and joked about never getting married and being a menace to society forever. This was always odd to me because I was shy, quiet, and insecure in Middle School. But the Mormon mission helped me develop an extroverted and confident persona.

So back to Joseph Smith, from a nontheistic science-based perspective, if Joseph Smith was attracting all these females and many people at that time spoke of Joseph Smith as being tall and good-looking and charismatic, then wasn't it simply natural that he would gain access to multiple females?

According to my research, Smith often got consent from the parents of the young women, and they were of legal age at that time. The only criticism I think you can make, from a nontheistic scientific perspective, is to complain that Joseph Smith was much older than some of his teenage brides. One could argue that most of the teenage brides at that time were marrying other teenage young men or men in their early twenties. But based on my research there were cases of older men marrying teenage brides and this was legal at that time. And if you look through history you will find that it has always been common for older men to mate and/or marry younger women.

So on what moral grounds can we actually judge Joseph Smith? I guess I'm speaking mostly to the agnostics and atheists here.

Because as I see it, Smith was just simply a high-status alpha ape in tune with Nature. I think he just clothed the energy of his high-status alpha maleness (that nature naturally produced) in religious language. So that just like among alpha apes of multiple ape species (including us humans), the top male has access to multiple females, Joseph Smith was just yet another alpha ape. I mean how many of us really complain about Hugh Hefner, or movie stars, or top athletes having access to multiple females? I think many of us men, if we are brutally honest, somewhat envy them. And wish to be like them. Or maybe I'm just morally depraved? LOL. But I mean think about it, why do most of the movies that us men like to watch are about an alpha male having access to multiple women and conquering his enemies?

LIFE simply seeks to grow and expand and thrive, and it does this in all kinds of ways that our "modern moralities" may find distasteful. Some female insects will mate with a male and then kill the male. Some insects will paralyze another insect (acting now as host) and implant it's offspring which then are born and consume the living host alive! Male lions that want to mate with another female lion (who just gave birth to cubs), will try to eat the cubs, so that more attention will be given to his future cubs. It is what it is.

So from an amoral Lifeward perspective, D&C 132 would just be a memetic reflection of Nature's reality, wherein a high-status male is writing to his puritan wife (who does not want to share him because of her competing feminine nature), and so Joseph intuitively draws authority from the Hebrew God himself, and the Hebrew Bible and the former high-status males like Abraham and Moses and David and Solomon. And since Life is all about growth and expansion and thriving, section 132 speaks of the continuation of the "lives" through the male "seed" in order to bear the souls of men through multiple brides.

Thoughts?

This reminds me of the time I learned that birds were once thought to mate for life. Then after further studies (especially dna) it was found most birds are serial adulterous mating machines.

[Free Ranger]

This is a response to Res Ipsa,

Thanks for the response. I am new to this forum and still learning the technical side. So I'm just going to put your words and quotes.

"I identify as an atheist, if forced to identify my stance toward religion."

I too consider myself an atheist but I do not like that label due to the baggage that comes with that word. I have also been influenced by Jordan Peterson and Tom Holland and there are days when I might/could consider myself a Christian humanist like John Spong.

You wrote: "You've obviously given this quite a bit of thought and articulated your hypothesis clearly. The problem, as I see it, is what is referred to as the "naturalistic fallacy:"
The naturalistic fallacy is an informal logical fallacy which argues that if something is ‘natural’ it must be good."

Except to clarify, I was not arguing Joseph Smith's naturalistic behavior was "morally good." Anymore than I would say it's morally good for alpha male Gorillas to hoard all the females. But I understand what you are saying.

"It is closely related to the is/ought fallacy – when someone tries to infer what ‘ought’ to be done from what ‘is’.
https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer- ... c-fallacy/"

It is interesting that you bring up the is/ought fallacy, because it kind of makes my point for me a bit. As an exMormon I used my "LDS morality" (rather than say the Viking morality of my ancestors, I'm Scandinavian) which I learned from Mormonism and applied it to Joseph Smith. In other words I was using my learned morality I was taught from the Mormon belief system to condemn that same belief system. I failed to see the irony in that. So over time I realized that I was saying Smith ought to have done this because I was taught what should/ought to be done. This then fueled a sense of moral outrage and years of railing against the Mormon church. But as I've grown more mature I've realized that Joseph Smith I think is more complex than I made things out to be. We could go through each of your criticisms point-by-point and I could give counter-thoughts and things to think about and all the good that Smith said and did. In the end I have come to a very complex view of Joseph Smith. I somewhat admire him like I admire my Viking ancestors yet don't morally endorse everything they did because of my modern ethics. But nor am I willing to throw my Viking ancestors under the bus when they were operating through a different moral lens.

Yes, I agree that as you said "Joseph Smith is a moral agent who can make choices that contradict his natural impulses." But based on my reading of multiple biographies of Joseph Smith, I think he believed he was doing the right thing and he had the Hebrew Bible as justification. As Dan Vogel covers, Smith often had "moral" motivations even through his deceptive arts.

I also hypothesize that Joseph Smith was breaking out of the Puritan culture of his day and was influenced by the atheistic science of his day and the scientific materialism/naturalism of his day. So he was rejecting the sectarian God without parts and passions and presenting a more sexual and embodied God which changed his moral philosophy.

I'm currently reading the book Nauvoo Kingdom, and I just read about how some women were attracted to his plural marriage practice because of it's unorthodox nature. So given this interesting way of looking at it, I'm not as troubled by the criticisms you brought up. I'm tempted to say yeah that was a dick move, that was a mistake, but not quite willing to become morally outraged over it like I used to be. I tend to think more along the lines of yes those were overstepping his power but I also applaud his bravado and breaking free of the sectarian puritanism of his day. This was a time when people were not having premarital sex without great societal shaming and so most people just got married. So in many ways I consider Joseph Smith kind of a liberator of human sexuality to a certain degree. From this perspective he was kind of humanistic and perhaps even "acting moral" in relieving people of their shame over their body by declaring God has a body of flesh and bones and is a sexual being.

If you or I were "moral agents" living in the Old Testament times when polygamy was practiced and women had a different position in society, you and I would not be having this discussion, right? My point is, I think Smith in his mind was restoring a lot of the Old Testament Era template and this drove much of his behavior.

Whenever I as a non-theist say Joseph should not have done this or that I really don't have an objective reason why. I just find some things he did distasteful. But my Viking ancestors would not have found it distasteful. So where are we getting this moral outrage at Joseph Smith from?
From where are we deriving our shoulds and oughts?

You said:
"People's natural impulses aren't necessarily moral. So, that Smith may have followed his natural impulses doesn't mean he is immune from criticizing his failure to make different choices."

Yes we absolutely can criticize and perhaps we should. But I don't see how we can do that from rationality, science and nature. I have a brother who became an ex Mormon like me and his ex Mormon wife cheated on him and the marriage and family court could care less. So if a modern American Court would not care what Joseph did (with women) how can we be so morally outraged over it? I would argue that the courts simply rejected the Christian morality and so my brother's ex-wife was not culpable under the rational science-based law. I only see us condemning non-traditional behavior by relying on our constructed morality, which let's face it comes from Christianity. So I guess one could argue from the position of Christian Atheism but not sure that makes any sense.

You said, "For example, one can certainly make the case that Smith used the power and prestige of his self-designated status as prophet of God to pressure and/or entice young women into having sex with him."

Yeah but you just described every high testosterone alpha male in the world practically. Most atheistic humanistic psychologists would argue that much of what drives men to seek status and wealth and power in our capitalist society is so they can pressure or entice young women into having sex with them. For example a high-status man will not have patience for a young woman who may not be willing to have sex with him because he has so many other options, and so she will feel pressure to give in as her biology will cause her to feel jealous thinking of these other women sleeping with him. But she still can say no. So you haven't explained why that's wrong? We can say as modern civilized man that we don't like this alpha male behavior, put the women are still going to be attracted to it. They are still going to go for the Millionaires and movie stars and high-status athletes. We can argue for traditional courting and opening doors and being virgins on our wedding night. But the fact is the modern culture has a whole different morality than it did just 20 years ago. Which ads even more to my question, on atheism and modern promiscuousness, how can we judge Joseph Smith?

From an atheistic perspective we are in fact just Naked Apes without souls, and so besides arguing from what's legal and illegal, how can one judge Joseph Smith?

Are there other ways to examine those cases you brought up. For example, was it not more harmful that the young women were under the control of the shaming cultural lens of Puritanism? Some women did reject Joseph Smith, right? Joseph Smith also essentially allowed some women to have sex with more than one man. What if those women enjoyed that? Why were the parents so willing to go along with it? Did the women all find Joseph Smith disgusting and unattractive? I'm merely pointing out the nuance of each of these situations. Did Joseph Smith's status itself drive much of his behavior? I have read scientific literature that shows that high-status men in power positions have higher testosterone which drives much of their behavior. I'm not trying to get into the Free Will vs Determinism argument here, but as a fellow atheist I think you would admit that we are entering into clouded territory, right? Because on determinism he really can't make a moral choice can he? If we grew up as he did with his personality, biology, status, and were influenced by all the parameters which drove his behavior, would we have done the same thing as him? If you like many atheist determinists say yes, then the argument from moral choice makes no sense. And Smith was in fact an alpha male in tune with nature.

So I'm hearing he should not/ought not have done this or that. Yet after reading some of the Viking scriptures of my ancestors, there are passages where Odin helps you hold down a woman. Obviously that conflicts with our modern ethics and would be illegal today. My point is the "higher good" is different depending on the times and culture. Take any moral issue today and you will find different points of view.

So appealing to being a moral agent and what we ought to do is not convincing to me on atheism. I certainly have my moral tastes and preferences. That is why I did add a caveat that we can control ourselves and most of us don't shoot people who cut in front of us in traffic. But tell that to Russell Crowe : https://youtu.be/NbIkk1uHr78
But I would say that it's mostly the law of the land which motivates most of us human animals from killing each other more often. For example, just look at marriage court for gawd's sake. Once they abandoned Christian morality things have definitely changed, and women once given the legal freedom have certainly been more promiscuous and devious than our Puritan ancestors would have thought capable.

You said, "All these are moral choices that are open to criticism based on any number of moral grounds: misuse of power, coercion, dishonesty, breach of trust, etc."

But what is the "Right" use of power? All power is gained through power plays, with winners and losers, the deceived and the triumphant, etc. Advertisers coerce everyday. Salesmen are allowed to coerce people everyday. Capitalism is one big Power Play. Why is it wrong to be dishonest if it gains you wealth and power and provides for your family? What is your standard as an atheist? On atheism, I don't see how we can make all of these should statements and deciding what is right and wrong. These are religious and theistic notions. They make no sense to me outside of Christianity.

You said:
"So, as I see it, the fact that Smith's behavior can be described as "natural" does not immunize his choices from moral criticism or excuse him from otherwise applicable moral standards."

Right, I agree. If you take the moral Christian standards that have been saturating our consciousness for two thousand years, then I agree. But even that Christian morality we are most familiar with has gone through changes and shifts. The progress of gay rights is one example of that. The early Christian Movement was largely a cult of martyrs and celibates, then there was an emphasis on only the missionary position.

"I hope that gives you the feedback you were looking for."

It absolutely did give me good feedback, thank you! A lot of what you said is what I would have said 5 years ago before I began studying philosophy more deeply, including the work of Nietzsche and many modern day atheists who are moral relativists.

So I'm not saying you or anyone is wrong in criticizing Joseph Smith as a moral agent from the Christian perspective. Or if you want to use the morality of Confucianism or something. What I was getting at was that Joseph Smith is not much different than most alpha males among humans and apes. And from the perspective of life and nature he was living out his natural tendencies to fruition. And from the morality of the Vikings and most of pagan morality he was very heroic and accomplished great things and somewhat freed his people from puritanism and the secretariad doctrine of eternal torment for thought crimes. So if we look at ol Joe's misbehavior through different lenses, such as the Vikings, the early Hebrews, Greeks and Romans, machiavellianism, nietzscheanism, the CIA if you will, was he not exercising his power to gain power as life itself lives/feeds on life in order to increase in power expansion?

What I'm asking is, by what standard are we exMo's judging Joseph Smith? And if we look at his behavior through a different lens does that change our judgments in any way?

Where are we getting our right and wrong, you're he should have done this and must not have done that, from?

Where I can agree with you is that at times Joseph Smith overstepped his bounds and acted kind of stupid. Some of his behavior tested the loyalties of his followers and caused unnecessary hurtful reactions and loss of followers and the creation of enemies which partly led to his downfall. I also think the angel with the sword thing was rather lame. Based on descriptions of him at the time he could have found other women who were interested in him without this tactic. But then again we can't read his mind and maybe he thought it was win-win what he was doing, and he really thought it was God's way and the women would be happy once they embraced him as a plural husband; and we don't even know if he had some dream of an angel with a sword and thought it was a real threat to him. We actually have no idea. But saying that he was strategically stupid is different than making a moral judgment as an atheist.

Thoughts?

P.S. I may not respond until tomorrow because I'm going to be busy tonight.

[Physics Guy]

What if the people who lynched Joseph Smith were just in tune with Nature, too?

[Free Ranger]

What if the people who lynched Joseph Smith were just in tune with Nature, too?

Touché! Good retort! But it doesn't (in my mind) impact my argument in any way. Because the mob that attacked Smith were indeed part of Nature, just like a tornado. I also said in my previous post, "Some of his behavior tested the loyalties of his followers and caused unnecessary hurtful reactions and loss of followers and the creation of enemies which partly led to his downfall." So the mob was a product of his poor/unwise decisions as a leader, a natural cause and effect event. As I explained before, all life is a power play, and Smith's power was overpowered by the more powerful mob. Fair game so to speak, in the Game of Life. He lived as a "warrior" (taking up the sword as a general) and died as one in a gun fight.

Allow me to riff a bit. The "moral" ideals we use to judge Smith were themselves a product of the same cosmic power play at work. To start, one could even say there was a kind of "lynching" with the Christ figure representing the logos of the Warrior God that leaves his power-status to become a somewhat disempowered slave/servant as Jesus on a mission to be "lynched" so to speak (see Philippians 2:6-8); which I would argue was in part a mythic attempt to overpower the belief of certain Jews that war against the Romans was just and right. Paul reversed this Mosaic fight back (we shall conquer!) morality, by saying "If someone does wrong to you, do not pay him back by doing wrong to him [Repay no one evil for evil]. ... Do your best to ... live in peace with everyone. My friends, do not try to punish others when they wrong you [take revenge; avenge yourselves], but wait for God to punish them with his anger [leave room for God’s wrath]. [ For] It is written: 'I will punish those who do wrong [ Vengeance is mine]; I will repay them [Deut. 32:35],' says the Lord. But you should do this: 'If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink. Doing this will be like pouring [heaping] burning coals on his head' [Prov. 25:21–22].” (Source: Romans 12:17-20, EXB). Paul and others reversed the violent (fight for your freedom) aims of certain Jewish sects with a non-violent path of attacking the invisible forces of Death and cosmic-Sin instead by dying a martyr in order to bring about the apocalypse. This new "moral" ideal of being a punching bag for Christ (Paul constantly boasts of welcoming abuse which makes him feel mystically closer to Christ) and dying a martyr led some pagans to admire their commitment to die for their beliefs; and made them curious as to what was so great about this afterlife that they were willing to die for it.

You don't fight back and allow yourself to be abused and killed because Paul really believed Yahweh would fly down very soon and the kick the crap out of the Romans and their enemies for them. See the scholarship of Paul Middleton on early Christian martyrdom for more details.

Joseph Smith did not adopt this martyr-centric Pauline mentality at all. He was more like Moses so to speak. And like the American Founders who fought for what they believed in rather than waiting around for Yahweh fly down and form a utopia on earth, Joseph Smith sought to build Zion. Smith died by a mob yes, but he fought back before dying! How American is that!

So again, by what "morality" do we judge Joseph Smith? For the same Pauline morality that judges his sexual behavior would also judge his American self-defense measures, right? And Paul encouraged widows and the unmarried to be celibate in 1 Corinthians 7:8. By Paul's "moral" standards Joseph Smith was not moral, but by our modern American standards -- where celibacy for religious reasons like Paul's is generally frowned upon as oppressive and fanatical -- Joseph Smith was moral by comparison. For Joseph Smith's sexual ethic was more Life-affirming, more sex positive, was it not? Can that be considered a "moral" advancement on the part of Smith?

Just as a more powerful mob overpowered Smith, the Christian morality began to overpower the pagan moralities in the first century. But, as many of us know from history, it was not the mere "war" of words and memetic ideas (about love and turning the other cheek) that led to the success of Christianity in changing our notions of good and bad behavior; it was when the Christian Church(es) gained State Power under Constantine, and Christian theologians began interpreting Gehenna/hell as "eternal torment for thought crime" (which literally scared the hell out of people), and the Church enforced the Creed by the sword, that it gained fuller success in defeating the pagan religions/moralities. So one could say that the people who lynched paganism were just in tune with Nature, just as the people who lynched Joseph Smith were just in tune with Nature. Just as one species causes another species to go extinct, and one version of technology is overpowered by another, etc.

The overall point I am making is I am questioning the moral outrage I used to feel toward Smith, and examining his life and what he created through multiple perspectives.

[dastardly stem]

Welcome, Freeranger,

I think we can safely assume that the health and well-being of humanity is somewhere we can set as a moral goal. Luckily compared to other species we have that luxury. While many other species seem to have developed moral codes, of a sort, as a means to adapt through evolution, our species can decide on goals to pursue and drive towards that goal, creating steps on that drive and naming those as a moral codes. It may not be an absolute or objective ground for our goals, but it's close and we lose out from claiming objectivity on a technicality (the lame is/ought problem).

As for having anger or resentment for Smith? I don't' know. I figure he grew in his life, as a consequence of his environment, and his biology. And as such the complicated mix of everything that he was and all that went into him, resulted in him doing what he did, including marrying many women and passing it off as religiously good. I only blame him in the sense that so doing was a destructive action against the well-being of humanity. But he couldn't help it, so in the long run I forgive him for his selfishness and ignorance.

[MG 2.0]

As for having anger or resentment for Smith? I don't' know. I figure he grew in his life, as a consequence of his environment, and his biology. And as such the complicated mix of everything that he was and all that went into him, resulted in him doing what he did, including marrying many women and passing it off as religiously good. I only blame him in the sense that so doing was a destructive action against the well-being of humanity. But he couldn't help it, so in the long run I forgive him for his selfishness and ignorance.

1 Corinthians:
25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

By the way, humans are prone to doing things that can be seen as harmful or destructive to others even when those same actions can be seen by the so called perpetrator/actor as being acceptable or even moral. And there is a wide spectrum that goes from obviously heinous to ‘not so much’.

Joseph moved back a forth along that spectrum just as we all do.

If one uses this scripture out of 1 Corinthians as a guide one might ask whether Joseph was the perfect/capable candidate for a work that God needed to do in this period of world history and enlightenment. The fruits seem to bear that out.

Oh, and we’re all in a state of nature. If God created it, He’s well aware of all of the biology and natural processes that dovetail with the actions and motivations that are part and parcel of being human. The need that some have to strip God out of the picture takes a LOT of energy and bandwidth.

Regards,
MG

[Free Ranger]

Thanks for the welcome, dastardly stem

I agree that it is healthy for civilized societies to construct ethical codes for greater cohesion. Even the character Dexter, of the TV series, had a “Code.” Can’t wait for the new season! Anyway, I think Joseph Smith was living in the more “wild west,” compared to today, some territories were not even states yet. In that “wild” setting I allow for him to be more wild to a degree. Sometimes the law was not enforced and people died a lot. They did not have Harvard Ethic classes. Slavery was legal. It was a time of further “moral” development. So I place Smith in that time frame, not ours. I then notice the Puritanical Victorian nature of the time. In that context, I see Smith experimenting with a form of sexual liberation which was damn brave, which is a moral virtue I think.

I think the early Mormon movement was creative and explorative; Smith was more artist than synthesizer, a the codifying fell to the Pratt Brothers. Then Brigham Yong sought more doctrinal control and finalizing. Then if you read Terryl Given’s Wrestling the Angel, you see how this initial creativity and explorative spirit in early Mormonism was pretty much ended by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie and the Correlation Committee. Then Spencer Kimball published his massively ignorant and stupid puritanical Miracle of Forgiveness. Then it became more of a Corporation overly fixated on Sexual Purity and Business Success, rather than what it was under Joseph Smith's leadership: being about Zion and replacing the vaporous sectarian god without a sexual body with a God that has body and has sex and wants us to enjoy sex too; and according the Peter Coviello in his book, Make Yourselves Gods, Smith's original attempt at a more liberal theology of a God with a sexual body and the alternative lifestyle of plural marriage, was attacked by American Puritans so that after the government forced them to end polygamy, Mormons tried to be correct the public images as sexual deviants by acting more Puritan than the Puritans in the 1900s. But I digress.

So as to what you said, I place Smith in the position of as a piece in the cultural chess board of evolution, that helped move the game of codes away from puritanical fanaticism, and toward our modern sexual liberation. There is the evolution of species and culture, and this evolution does not occur perfectly/purely, so I see Smith making mistakes but his work and vision being an overall good for culture if judged from his time and place.

I commend your forgiving attitude; just a question, what do you mean “I only blame him in the sense that so doing was a destructive action against the well-being of humanity.” How were his actions destructive against the well-being of ALL humanity?

[Free Ranger]

As for having anger or resentment for Smith? I don't' know. I figure he grew in his life, as a consequence of his environment, and his biology. And as such the complicated mix of everything that he was and all that went into him, resulted in him doing what he did, including marrying many women and passing it off as religiously good. I only blame him in the sense that so doing was a destructive action against the well-being of humanity. But he couldn't help it, so in the long run I forgive him for his selfishness and ignorance.

1 Corinthians:
25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29That no flesh should glory in his presence. 30But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: 31That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

By the way, humans are prone to doing things that can be seen as harmful or destructive to others even when those same actions can be seen by the so called perpetrator/actor as being acceptable or even moral. And there is a wide spectrum that goes from obviously heinous to ‘not so much’.

Joseph moved back a forth along that spectrum just as we all do.

If one uses this scripture out of 1 Corinthians as a guide one might ask whether Joseph was the perfect/capable candidate for a work that God needed to do in this period of world history and enlightenment. The fruits seem to bear that out.

Oh, and we’re all in a state of nature. If God created it, He’s well aware of all of the biology and natural processes that dovetail with the actions and motivations that are part and parcel of being human. The need that some have to strip God out of the picture takes a LOT of energy and bandwidth.

Regards,
MG

I agree with much of what you said when I put on my theist-hat, even though I am a non-theist. And I do have days I feel open to deism or pantheism. But the quote from 1 Corinthians is partly why I admire Joseph’s philosophy over Paul’s and Augustine’s. I think Paul was a bit too obsessed with imitating his messiah, by being weak, lower class, a victim, boasting in his getting abused, and longing to die to be with his messiah; rather than focusing on this life. But I also admire Paul too in many ways, which I won’t go into here.