A gem from the FAIRLDS site

[_moksha]

Thanks to mms for pointing this out. The following is from a discussion of the morality of polygamy and Joseph's denial of practicing it.

Like obedience to civil law, honesty and integrity are foundational values to the Church of Jesus Christ. Indeed, the success which critics have in troubling members of the Church with tales of polygamy and its deceptive circumstances is, in a way, a compliment to the Church. If the Church as an institution typically taught its members to have a casual disregard for the truth, a discovery that Joseph Smith had deceived others about polygamy would not be troubling to most. But, because the Church (contrary to the suggestions of some critics) really does teach its members to aspire to live elevated lives of moral rectitude, the discovery that deception was involved with polygamy can come as something of a shock. Disillusionment can ensue if we follow the critics in assuming that because Joseph occasionally misled others in this specific context, he must therefore have lied about everything else, and been absolutely unworthy of trust.

But, as we have seen, the practice of polygamy must be viewed in its moral context as an act of religious devotion which the Saints were unwilling to forego simply because the state or society disapproved.

As I said on the other board, this is beyond parody.

It really would have been better saying something like, "It was unfortunate that Joseph was unwilling to tell the truth about his polygamy". It is much simpler and requires less tortuous reasoning. I don't understand why they feel compelled to offer a defense for items like this.

[_Blixa]

Thanks to mms for pointing this out. The following is from a discussion of the morality of polygamy and Joseph's denial of practicing it.

Like obedience to civil law, honesty and integrity are foundational values to the Church of Jesus Christ. Indeed, the success which critics have in troubling members of the Church with tales of polygamy and its deceptive circumstances is, in a way, a compliment to the Church. If the Church as an institution typically taught its members to have a casual disregard for the truth, a discovery that Joseph Smith had deceived others about polygamy would not be troubling to most. But, because the Church (contrary to the suggestions of some critics) really does teach its members to aspire to live elevated lives of moral rectitude, the discovery that deception was involved with polygamy can come as something of a shock. Disillusionment can ensue if we follow the critics in assuming that because Joseph occasionally misled others in this specific context, he must therefore have lied about everything else, and been absolutely unworthy of trust.

But, as we have seen, the practice of polygamy must be viewed in its moral context as an act of religious devotion which the Saints were unwilling to forego simply because the state or society disapproved.

As I said on the other board, this is beyond parody.

It really would have been better saying something like, "It was unfortunate that Joseph was unwilling to tell the truth about his polygamy". It is much simpler and requires less tortuous reasoning. I don't understand why they feel compelled to offer a defense for items like this.

So true, moksha. And in the long term, one would have more respect, intellectually and ethically, for that kind of explanation. The only situation in which that would not be seen as quite obviously more beneficial than tortuous and disingenuous prevarication is within authoritarian hagiography.

[_Gadianton]

...This has GOT TO BE one of the dumbest arguments about anything I've ever had the misfortune to hear. How did someone with such low brain wattage get an MD?

As a doc, I've been around TBM docs, exmo docs and nevermo docs. I've concluded there is a vail in tbm brains that separate their brains between religious thought and normal reason and logic. It amazes me that they can be so brilliant and talented in their scientific profession, then in the same breath say "yes, I know Joseph had a vision...."

I thought of your comment here when I read this today...

http://www.ldsmag.com/medicine/071220brigham.html

How about a statue of Brigham holding a javelin, ready to atone a sin or punish an interracial married couple? How about a statue of him interlocking his fingers and nodding over mountain meadows?

[_harmony]

It really would have been better saying something like, "It was unfortunate that Joseph was unwilling to tell the truth about his polygamy". It is much simpler and requires less tortuous reasoning. I don't understand why they feel compelled to offer a defense for items like this.

So true, moksha. And in the long term, one would have more respect, intellectually and ethically, for that kind of explanation. The only situation in which that would not be seen as quite obviously more beneficial than tortuous and disingenuous prevarication is within authoritarian hagiography.

I think it goes back to the singlemindedness of the AoFs. We seek after that which is uplifting and virtuous, and when we find something that is not uplifting (on that contrary, it is heartbreaking) in our history, we have to find a way to make it virtuous, even if it means torturing it until it doesn't resemble the facts at all. Many many, altogether too many, of our members think like Charity: ignore the facts if they don't resemble that which we "know" is true.

[_Blixa]

It really would have been better saying something like, "It was unfortunate that Joseph was unwilling to tell the truth about his polygamy". It is much simpler and requires less tortuous reasoning. I don't understand why they feel compelled to offer a defense for items like this.

So true, moksha. And in the long term, one would have more respect, intellectually and ethically, for that kind of explanation. The only situation in which that would not be seen as quite obviously more beneficial than tortuous and disingenuous prevarication is within authoritarian hagiography.

I think it goes back to the singlemindedness of the AoFs. We seek after that which is uplifting and virtuous, and when we find something that is not uplifting (on that contrary, it is heartbreaking) in our history, we have to find a way to make it virtuous, even if it means torturing it until it doesn't resemble the facts at all. Many many, altogether too many, of our members think like Charity: ignore the facts if they don't resemble that which we "know" is true.

I don't know, harmony, if I see it connected to that part of the AoF or not, but that part is my least favorite. The AoF always struck me as pretty bland and benign---albeit after the part about stinging apostates out of the hive was removed. I think the statement reflects a more recent moment in Mormon history, the contemporary upsurge in internet aplogetics/internet Mormonism and its concommitant denial/revision of Mormon history, culture and doctrine.

Nevertheless, I find the part I bolded interesting and something to think more on...

[_Scottie]

I realized just over a year or so ago that to many believers (Mormon and non-Mormon alike) there is a blurring of ethical behavior when it crosses over into the religious. The belief that unethical behavior is "okay", if not outright commendable when "endorsed by God" is responsible for the 9/11 hijackings, thousands of women burned at the stake, the Holy Inquisition and yes, polygamy too.

Thou shalt not kill - unless I say so.
Thou shalt not commit adultery - unless I say so.

And so forth. There are apparently no hard and fast moral rules in this world that cannot be undone when you throw the will of God in there.

I've asked the question several times...could Joseph Smith have done anything so horrific that it would make you question his prophetic calling?

If he slaughtered an entire town of men, women and children, but claimed that God commanded it, would that cause any concern?
If he raped virgin children and then sacrificed them on an alter, but claimed that God commanded it, would it be excused away?
If he married and had sex with other worthy men's wives under the guise of Eternal Sealings, would that be a deal-breaker?

I honestly think that there is no crime abhorrent enough that the apologists wouldn't whisk it away with the wave of a hand. After all, who are we to question God's commands?

[_truth dancer]

Hi Scottie...

I honestly think that there is no crime abhorrent enough that the apologists wouldn't whisk it away with the wave of a hand. After all, who are we to question God's commands?

I completely agree with you.

There is NOTHING Joseph Smith could have done that would alter the belief that he was a prophet. Nothing.

Anything can be rationalized, justified, and dismissed if "God said."

So long as one believes God is giving the orders, a man can kill babies, children, mothers and fathers, fly airplanes into buildings, sleep with whomever one wants be in girls or other men's wives, or one's teenaged housekeepers. If God said, even agreeing to kill one's son is fine and dandy.

Lying, manipulating, coercing, cheating, destroying lives, gossiping, spreading horrific rumors, raping, killing, adultery, all A-OK!

~dancer~

[_beastie]

Time for one of my favorite quotes:

It is an insult to God to believe in God. For on the one hand it is to suppose that he has perpetrated acts of incalculable cruelty. On the other hand, it is to suppose that he has perversely given his human creatures an instrument -- their intellect -- which must inevitably lead them, if they are dispassionate and honest, to deny his existence. It is tempting to conclude that if he exists, it is the atheists and agnostics that he loves best, among those with any pretensions to education. For they are the ones who have taken him most seriously. ~Galen Strawson

[_Jason Bourne]

Thanks to mms for pointing this out. The following is from a discussion of the morality of polygamy and Joseph's denial of practicing it.

Like obedience to civil law, honesty and integrity are foundational values to the Church of Jesus Christ. Indeed, the success which critics have in troubling members of the Church with tales of polygamy and its deceptive circumstances is, in a way, a compliment to the Church. If the Church as an institution typically taught its members to have a casual disregard for the truth, a discovery that Joseph Smith had deceived others about polygamy would not be troubling to most. But, because the Church (contrary to the suggestions of some critics) really does teach its members to aspire to live elevated lives of moral rectitude, the discovery that deception was involved with polygamy can come as something of a shock. Disillusionment can ensue if we follow the critics in assuming that because Joseph occasionally misled others in this specific context, he must therefore have lied about everything else, and been absolutely unworthy of trust.

But, as we have seen, the practice of polygamy must be viewed in its moral context as an act of religious devotion which the Saints were unwilling to forego simply because the state or society disapproved.

As I said on the other board, this is beyond parody.

Let me get this straight. The Church should be complimented because when we find out Joseph Smith lied we are mad and the reason we are mad is because the Church taught us to value honesty do highly??? RIGHT............!

[_solomarineris]

Thanks to mms for pointing this out. The following is from a discussion of the morality of polygamy and Joseph's denial of practicing it.

Like obedience to civil law, honesty and integrity are foundational values to the Church of Jesus Christ. Indeed, the success which critics have in troubling members of the Church with tales of polygamy and its deceptive circumstances is, in a way, a compliment to the Church. If the Church as an institution typically taught its members to have a casual disregard for the truth, a discovery that Joseph Smith had deceived others about polygamy would not be troubling to most. But, because the Church (contrary to the suggestions of some critics) really does teach its members to aspire to live elevated lives of moral rectitude, the discovery that deception was involved with polygamy can come as something of a shock. Disillusionment can ensue if we follow the critics in assuming that because Joseph occasionally misled others in this specific context, he must therefore have lied about everything else, and been absolutely unworthy of trust.

But, as we have seen, the practice of polygamy must be viewed in its moral context as an act of religious devotion which the Saints were unwilling to forego simply because the state or society disapproved.

As I said on the other board, this is beyond parody.

So, this paragraph basically admits that Joseph Smith was screwing other women behind Emma's back.
And this A**hole telling us to accept it? Because he was a Prophet?.
Oh! Of course I forgot, in D&C 132 God would give Prophet 72 Virgins and that wouldn't be adultery.

Good job Runtu, your post educated us beyond measure.
But I don't think Charity would justify this sanctimonious calling. Hey...God ordered it, who gives a s**t how Emma felt.