FAIR Journal - Message from Gordy

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I never said that. I think it likely that he did.

Here's what you said:

You have no proof at all that there were any physical relations between Joseph Smith and the wife of Orson Hyde. Or any of the plural wives. I am not saying there weren't, but you don't have any proof.

And I have pointed out there is ample proof that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with some of his plural wives.

Men have been known to have sex with their wives.

And even women with their husbands. ;)

But what I think isn't really important. Nor is what you think. The important thing is when we don't know something, we shouldn't speculate on it. And especially, speculations are really spurious when a person who is making them is completely biased.

They're not speculation -- my statements are based on actual affidavits signed by some of Joseph Smith's plural wives, collected by none other than the LDS Church.

On a thread on another board, some time ago, the question was asked if you knew God commanded it, would you give permission for your daughter to become a plural wife of a prophet. As I recall, a specific prophet was not named, just a prophet. You replied to that, that even if God were to be standing in front of you, you would refuse. I think that indicates a pretty strong bias.

I think the context was a 14-year old daughter (like Helen Mar Kimball), and I would refuse to turn her over to an already married mid-30's man. I would also refuse God's command to kill my child (as he did with Abraham). I don't see that as bias, but as moral agency.

[_charity]

The important thing is when we don't know something, we shouldn't speculate on it.

Why not? That’s what speculation is. It is natural. There is nothing “wrong” with it whatsoever. When you don’t know something, you often speculate. The majority of apologetic explanations rely on speculation to some degree or another (I.e. Gee speculates that the Joseph Smith papyrus was 10 feet long). But you seem to think speculation in favor of the Church is good whereas critical speculation is always wrong. This is so stupid.

What is stupid is leaving out pertinent information. Gee's "speculation" is based on a method Egyptologists use to estimate lengths of scrolls when they have only a piece of one. It has to do with the curvature of the fragment. It is a measurement. Or maybe you weren't stupid for leaving that out. Maybe you weren't aware, in which case you were merely ignorant. Neither is very good for a person who wants to maintain a certain amount of credibility.

And there is speculation and then there is speculation. If you are speculating on what the weather will be like on Thanksgiving Day that is one thing. If you are speculating on something in order to cast aspersions on a person's crediblity or character, then speculation is an evil practice.

And especially, speculations are really spurious when a person who is making them is completely biased.

See above.

You give me a headache just trying to figure out if you’re actually serious with these types of ridiculous comments. You pump them out every day and they serve a purpose for comic relief. The fact is one would be hard pressed to find an unbiased speculation, but speculation doesn’t become “spurious” simply because the person speculating is biased. If that were true, then nothing the apologist speculated about should be considered since apologists are the most biased people of the lot here.

[_Jason Bourne]

To be honest I really don't give a rat's butt if Marinda Hyde executed an affidavit claiming to have had sex with Joseph Smith while her real husband was out of town or not.

Sorry; I am into evidence. High quality or low quality, and I'll form judgments based on the quality. The wife affidavits the church submitted are high quality. The fact that we don't have such from Marinda or Zina means something, doesn't it? Don't you want to credit the source of statements when you evaulate evidence, especially that which pertains to a despised religion?

Or, are you into a rat's ass approach -- damn everything that comes from the Morg -- truth as well be damned.

rcrocket

So let's assume that Joseph had no sex with Marinda or Zina. Let's assume that he just married them to be sealed to them. Let us further assume that Orson and Henry believed in the eternal sealing power, that they could be sealed to the woman they loved, their sweethearts.

Why would Joseph need to be sealed to them. This is simply disturbing in and of itself.

Further why did Brigham take Zina for his own. And we know he had sex with her since she had his child.

How do you reconcile this with being required of God and godly behavior?

I have my views about both these women. Why don't we first start with their affidavits? Are there any -- from them?

Aren't you interested in the quality of the evidence against Brigham and Joseph? Or, do you accept all attacks against a despised religion with the same eye?

Bob

Why do you dodge reasonable questions? Why di you attempt to impugn me with your comment about simply accepting attacks agains a despised religion. I do not despise the LDS Church. I have devoted my life to it and have loved it and am rather sad about some things that I have trouble reconciling with what I have believed.

So above I asked questions that I know indeed have happened. There is plenty of evidence that Joseph married these women who were married? Are you disputing that? I am not clear from your cryptic post. Can you answer the question directly?

[_rcrocket]

Why do you dodge reasonable questions?

I usually don't answer a whole lot of questions that are not on the topic of my original post.

Why di you attempt to impugn me with your comment about simply accepting attacks agains a despised religion.

I didn't. I was speaking generically. Just keep in mind that when you are looking at historical evidence of the Church, you are looking at very biased sources -- both ways. If we were talking about vanilla Presybterianism, you wouldn't see that polarity. But we're not. Critics of the Church often and usually disregard the bias inherent in the sources of evidence upon which they rely. Arrington was good at assessment. Stenhouse to a degree. Compton was not -- I have chased down several of his sources and am shocked by the quality of them. Ditto for van Wagoner. Quinn is somewhat critical but he dumps so much stuff into his footnotes his loses it.

There is plenty of evidence that Joseph married these women who were married? Are you disputing that?

Yes on some pieces of evidence, no on others.

[_guy sajer]

There is plenty of evidence that Joseph married these women who were married? Are you disputing that?

Yes on some pieces of evidence, no on others.

Does it not appear, Robert, that you are missing the forrest for the trees? I mean, how many otherwise married women does someone have to marry in order to cause reasonable doubt about the quality of his character?

I mean, what's the cut-off line? If, for example, Joseph married 3 or fewer otherwise married women then this has no implictions for his character, but more than 3, and suddenly his character is in question?

I wonder how many freebies I would get before my wife divorced me?

[_rcrocket]

There is plenty of evidence that Joseph married these women who were married? Are you disputing that?

Yes on some pieces of evidence, no on others.

Does it not appear, Robert, that you are missing the forrest for the trees? I mean, how many otherwise married women does someone have to marry in order to cause reasonable doubt about the quality of his character?

I mean, what's the cut-off line? If, for example, Joseph married 3 or fewer otherwise married women then this has no implictions for his character, but more than 3, and suddenly his character is in question?

I wonder how many freebies I would get before my wife divorced me?

Before I respond to this post I'll need you to concede, for purposes of argument only, that plural marriage is (1) nowhere prohibited in scripture, (2) was sanctioned by god in the Old Testament, and (3) was considered by Joseph Smith to be part of the package of the restoration of all things. If you can't concede for purposes of my argument only these facts, then absolutely of course I cannot engage you with the specifics of Hyde and Huntington Smith Young. I will not be able to get over your revulsion to plural marriage, so why even attempt with the specifics of these two wives?

[_dartagnan]

What is stupid is leaving out pertinent information.

If so then LDS apologetics is stupid. John Gee must also be stupid.

The missionary discussions must also be stupid.

Virtually every apologetic presentation of LDS history must also be stupid.

Gee's "speculation" is based on a method Egyptologists use to estimate lengths of scrolls when they have only a piece of one.

No it isn’t. You’re not qualified to know whether this is true or not. I can name three Egyptologists who rank higher than Gee in both experience and prestige, and they think his argument is an absolute joke with no Egyptological basis whatsoever. You’re simply buying Gee’s “biased” opinion, supported by no other authority other himself. And his biased perspective, according to you own logic, renders his opinion “spurious.”

It has to do with the curvature of the fragment. It is a measurement. Or maybe you weren't stupid for leaving that out.

Stop pretending to know what the hell you are talking about. Gee’s argument has been beaten into the ground so many times it is astonishing to see anyone trying to salvage it. You do the critics a favor by trying to resurrect arguments that have been destroyed. It reminds everyone just how stupid some of these desperate arguments have been.

Maybe you weren't aware, in which case you were merely ignorant. Neither is very good for a person who wants to maintain a certain amount of credibility.

You should have thought about this before you started blathering away. Your credibility was shot to hell before you ever stepped foot into this forum. We knew what to expect, and you’re certainly living up to your reputation.

And there is speculation and then there is speculation.

Are you actually trying to provide us with an abundance of worthy signature lines?

If you are speculating on what the weather will be like on Thanksgiving Day that is one thing.

You don’t say.

If you are speculating on something in order to cast aspersions on a person's crediblity or character, then speculation is an evil practice.

This is such a stupid argument. Speculation is not wrong or right based on the subject or motive. Speculation is only as good as the evidence used to support it, no matter what the topic.

[_guy sajer]

There is plenty of evidence that Joseph married these women who were married? Are you disputing that?

Yes on some pieces of evidence, no on others.

Does it not appear, Robert, that you are missing the forrest for the trees? I mean, how many otherwise married women does someone have to marry in order to cause reasonable doubt about the quality of his character?

I mean, what's the cut-off line? If, for example, Joseph married 3 or fewer otherwise married women then this has no implictions for his character, but more than 3, and suddenly his character is in question?

I wonder how many freebies I would get before my wife divorced me?

Before I respond to this post I'll need you to concede, for purposes of argument only, that plural marriage is (1) nowhere prohibited in scripture, (2) was sanctioned by god in the Old Testament, and (3) was considered by Joseph Smith to be part of the package of the restoration of all things. If you can't concede for purposes of my argument only these facts, then absolutely of course I cannot engage you with the specifics of Hyde and Huntington Smith Young. I will not be able to get over your revulsion to plural marriage, so why even attempt with the specifics of these two wives?

Facts. Facts. I don't see no bloom'n facts.

I think I've made it clear that I don't take my moral marching orders from the social conventions of sexist, racist, misogynist, blood thirsty, backward, superstitious iron age pastoralists as codified in a book of historical fiction.

You're right, I can't get over my revulsion to plural marriage. Mind you, it's not the more than one spouse, per se, that repulses me, but it's the reduction of women to chattel, it's the emotional and sexual abuse of minors, it is the gedner-related power assymetries that it implies, etc. the repulse me.

Polygamy on a case by case basis may or may not be repulsive, but polygamy as a system (included that practiced by Mormonism) is repulsive in the extreme.

I guess I can understand, in a way, how you can plug your nose and embrace polygamy, but as the moral person you appear to be, I am a bit perpexed at how you rationalize away the lying and deception with which Joseph Smith practiced it as well as the dehumanizing effects it had, and has, on women. (The system as practiced, for example, by the FLDS is not too far afield by how it was practiced in early Mormonism.)

How can anyone who truly loves his/her daughters rationalize away this moral abomination?

Oh yeah, I'm glad you're OK Robert. I take it/hope that you emerged from the conflagation in reasonably good shape?

[_rcrocket]

Thanks for the good wishes. We live in a box canyon on a long private street shared with 30 others. When flames came within a few hundred yards we were ordered out of our homes. But the streets were clogged with people with horse trailers trying to get up to the horse ranch at the end of our canyon, fire trucks, people trying to leave, and real suspicious characters in old vans and trucks trying to get up the canyon. I stopped the suspicious characters, and while smoke was filling the air, flames were seen on the ridge, and they were trying to advance up my driveway, I asked them what they wanted. They were "scouting" a film location, they claimed. Not on my driveway, you're not.

The fire trucks used my house as a staging place; the bombers and helicopters put out the fire. But, the winds are up again this weekend.

[_charity]

.

Gee's "speculation" is based on a method Egyptologists use to estimate lengths of scrolls when they have only a piece of one.

No it isn’t. You’re not qualified to know whether this is true or not. I can name three Egyptologists who rank higher than Gee in both experience and prestige, and they think his argument is an absolute joke with no Egyptological basis whatsoever. You’re simply buying Gee’s “biased” opinion, supported by no other authority other himself. And his biased perspective, according to you own logic, renders his opinion “spurious.”

It has to do with the curvature of the fragment. It is a measurement. Or maybe you weren't stupid for leaving that out.

Stop pretending to know what the hell you are talking about. Gee’s argument has been beaten into the ground so many times it is astonishing to see anyone trying to salvage it. You do the critics a favor by trying to resurrect arguments that have been destroyed. It reminds everyone just how stupid some of these desperate arguments have been.

Maybe you weren't aware, in which case you were merely ignorant. Neither is very good for a person who wants to maintain a certain amount of credibility.

I take it you weren't at Dr. Gee's presenation at the FAIR conference 2007. So you really don't know what he said about measuring papyri fragment. Or else you would know not to parade your ignorance. I know anything that mentions the Book of Abraham throws you into a tizzy. You got so heated when you thougth I said you were the apologist who got handed his head in a basket, you assumed I was talking about the licking you took over the Book of Abraham (It was someone else in a different situation, and it wasn't the Book of Abraham.) But it is obvious you see red so quickly on the subject, you can't see clearly.

Any good counselor can tell you that it is never a good idea to get into a discussion when you are overly emotional. Emotion clouds the logical thinking processes.