Wow! At last we have the Chief Mopologist *admitting* that the critics' accusations about Joseph Smith being a "horndog" were correct! This is--dare I say?--a watershed moment in the history of Mopologetics. And take note of the fact that Prof. P. goes on to say "It would be a very sad marriage that was completely without [sexual desire]." You have to assume that this applies even to 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball.DCP wrote:I'm far less inclined than some are to speak of Joseph Smith and his actions as "dumb," "rotten," "very imperfect and flawed." And that's not at all because I'm disposed to "hero worship."
Was he flawed? Of course. As everyone is.
Was there an element of sexual desire in at least some of his marriages? Probably. Sexual desire exists in most marriages, I hope. It would be a very sad marriage that was completely without it.
I can't help but wonder: is this a new development? Did something cause the Mopologists to reverse course? Or have they believed all along that some part of Joseph Smith was lusting after all these women who eventually became his polygamous wives? It is quite shocking, too, to see that Dr. Peterson believes it would be "sad" if Jospeh *hadn't* wanted to have sex with 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball. I guess lusting after teenage girls is okay in the Mopologetic playbook?
In any case, Dr. P. uses the occasion to rehash yet another silly and nonsensical defense of Joseph Smith:
If Joseph were trying to cover up the fact that he was having sex with his plural wives, then don't you think he might've taken steps to avoid getting them pregnant?But the lack, thus far, of identifiable children of Joseph's polygamous marriages is just one of the reasons that lead me to think that the notion that they were mainly covers for wild sexual liaisons is probably false.
Quite an interesting development here, in any case.