Sarah Pratt: Credible Witness?

[_Sethbag]

With all due respect, I think one problem with your approach, Will, is that your implicit belief in the Prophet automatically negates the very evidence that would reveal him for a false or manmade prophet. Whereas in the New Testament it advises "by their fruits ye shall know them", you've chosen an approach which, instead, automatically promotes those fruits to "good" status on the basis of the "fact" that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. Your approach turns it around, so it becomes "by them shall ye know their fruits".

You've accepted a virtual reality whose axioms are hand-chosen, and refined over time, for their ability to explain all incoming facts in such a way that your first premises, that the LDS church is true and that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet, are supported. Joseph Smith, and his actions, get a pass in your book because the Spirit told you he was a true Prophet, or at least that's what you think happened. I believe there's very good reason to suspect that what you, and every other TBM, interpret as the Witness of the Spirit is actually explainable as something else, and is not a reliable or trustworthy way of establishing truth.

The way I see it, and probably the way most of the critics on this board see it, you're relying on a shaky foundation of Truth, and on the strength of your interpretation of unreliable and untrustworthy impressions, negating actual contrary evidence that should otherwise demonstrate that Joseph Smith was no true Man of God.

[_William Schryver]

With all due respect, I think one problem with your approach, Will, is that your implicit belief in the Prophet automatically negates the very evidence that would reveal him for a false or manmade prophet. Whereas in the New Testament it advises "by their fruits ye shall know them", you've chosen an approach which, instead, automatically promotes those fruits to "good" status on the basis of the "fact" that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. Your approach turns it around, so it becomes "by them shall ye know their fruits".

You've accepted a virtual reality whose axioms are hand-chosen, and refined over time, for their ability to explain all incoming facts in such a way that your first premises, that the LDS church is true and that Joseph Smith was a true Prophet, are supported. Joseph Smith, and his actions, get a pass in your book because the Spirit told you he was a true Prophet, or at least that's what you think happened. I believe there's very good reason to suspect that what you, and every other TBM, interpret as the Witness of the Spirit is actually explainable as something else, and is not a reliable or trustworthy way of establishing truth.

The way I see it, and probably the way most of the critics on this board see it, you're relying on a shaky foundation of Truth, and on the strength of your interpretation of unreliable and untrustworthy impressions, negating actual contrary evidence that should otherwise demonstrate that Joseph Smith was no true Man of God.

Seth,

1. You seem to be concluding that there are "fruits" that are indisputably "bad" that arise from any examination of the life of Joseph Smith. I dispute your conclusion.

2. You mistakenly characterize the nature and basis of my reasons for concluding that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. You have made assumptions about that conviction that are incorrect. You probably assume that everyone who holds such a conviction does so for reasons similar to those you once used to justify your belief. If so, that is your mistake.

3. I do not rely on the "strength of [my] interpretation of unreliable and untrustworthy impressions ..."

Again, the question remains, which is the most accurate view of the picture? The "illusion" of three-dimensions facilitated by the goggles, or the "reality" of two offset images as seen by the unaided eye?

You see, I perceive an indispensable value in the goggles. To me, they are the only means by which I can see what is really happening, what really happened, and what will yet really happen.

[_Inconceivable]

It's not his fault that apparently god tricked him by sending warm and fuzzy thoughts about an abortionist and sexual predator - enough to make him his number one adviser.

Obviously Joseph's Super Duper Countenance Detector was inferior to Will's. I guess we all have different gifts right? Joseph must have been endowed with other gifts.

91 And again, the duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses—
92 Behold, here is wisdom; yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 107:91 - 92)

Was he missing gifts from God? If he didn't have them then who did??

[_Runtu]

Schryver:


Probably not.

The two things are understandably intertwined.

Which is why the "victims'" (your word) judgment is of no more consequence than yours in this matter. They, like you, had a vested interest in believing that Joseph Smith's actions were right. Those who didn't, such as Sarah Pratt, Nancy Rigdon, and Martha Brotherton, reached completely different conclusions (as did Emma Smith, apparently).

And, as I have frequently made clear in reference to this and other issues (such as the Book of Abraham controversy), I am empathetic towards those whose judgment has led them to conclude otherwise. And once one has begun to seriously doubt that Joseph Smith was a bona fide prophet; a man who communicated in a very unique and real way with God, well ... I can understand perfectly how many other factors then seem to reinforce and confirm that conclusion.

As for myself, there are several decisive elements that factor into my conclusion.

Of course, but here you are essentially saying that you work backwards from the a priori conclusion that Joseph Smith was a prophet, so all evidence is filtered through that known "fact." And I'm confused about your statement of empathy; you've repeatedly said here and elsewhere that you have no such empathy for those of us who have concluded that Joseph Smith was a prophet. What gives?

[_harmony]

And yet none of them later came to regard their liaison with Joseph Smith as a dark chapter in their lives. Why? Sarah Pratt certainly regarded her dabbling in "plural marriage" as an assault upon her morals. Why not Fanny Alger?

Fanny isn't a good example, since Joseph's liaison with Fanny took place years prior to the restoration of the sealing power. And Fanny would never discuss it. Many women who have been abused by men who control their lives refuse to discuss the abuse.

[_Dr. Shades]

3. I do not rely on the "strength of [my] interpretation of unreliable and untrustworthy impressions ..."

Will:

What's your opinion of David Koresh, and why do you hold that opinion?

[_Runtu]

And yet none of them later came to regard their liaison with Joseph Smith as a dark chapter in their lives. Why? Sarah Pratt certainly regarded her dabbling in "plural marriage" as an assault upon her morals. Why not Fanny Alger?

Fanny isn't a good example, since Joseph's liaison with Fanny took place years prior to the restoration of the sealing power. And Fanny would never discuss it. Many women who have been abused by men who control their lives refuse to discuss the abuse.

Actually, this is a misstatement on Will's part. We have no idea whether any of them came to regard their liaisons with Joseph Smith as dark chapters in their lives or not. Most of them never spoke of it, and those who did were believing Mormons who would be inclined to speak positively of such a liaison. I would imagine that some of them wore their marriages to Joseph Smith as badges of honor because it put them in elite company within the community of believers. But, as we are often reminded, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence; Fanny Alger refused to discuss it at all. Who is to say what she thought about it at all?

[_truth dancer]

Until then, your claim that these women had any complaints about their arrangement with Joseph Smith is pure, unadulterated conjecture, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

I have never suggested that the women Joseph Smith used had any complaints.

I'm saying that because we have little written record of complaints does NOT mean they were happy with their situation or Joseph Smith's behavior.

We KNOW that women who have been abused, raped, and used in degrading ways typically do NOT discuss their abuse. They do NOT want to relive it. They typically keep it secret and deny it.

Similarly if the women who were used by Joseph Smith felt degraded or demeaned we can assume they were like most other women and would not want to discuss or share it.

I, on the other hand, could produce evidence, both direct and circumstantial, that would justify the conclusion I have reached: that these women were, seemingly without exception, honored and pleased to have been married to Joseph Smith, and to have the privilege of resuming that relationship in the next life.

There are girls (few fourteen year olds), and women who like to attach themselves to the alpha male. We just have to look around to see this. Obviously there were women who did not want to be sexually involved with Joseph Smith and refused his advances, so it could be that those who accepted Joseph Smith's advances were the type of girls and women who felt privileged to be chosen by the alpha male. It could also be, and it is my guess that there were a variety of situations and reasons for women to become sexually involved with a married cult leader. (I use the word cult because the church WAS technically a cult at the time).

I gave several possible reasons in my previous post.

But again the point is, many women who have survived abuse, rape, degradation, or humiliation do NOT want to discuss it hence just because a woman doesn't share with the world her humiliation does not mean she didn't experience it.

~dancer~

[_William Schryver]

Runtu:

They, like you, had a vested interest in believing that Joseph Smith's actions were right.

Really? What is that “vested interest?” Please describe it.

Those who didn't, such as Sarah Pratt, Nancy Rigdon, and Martha Brotherton, reached completely different conclusions (as did Emma Smith, apparently).

Pratt, Rigdon, and Brotherton are interesting cases, but largely irrelevant to our discussion because they never had first-hand experience being married to Joseph Smith. Rigdon, of course, refused Joseph's proposal -- indicating, incidentally, that she obviously had a choice in the matter.

As for Emma, I’m glad you brought her up. Because, while it is true that she was consistent in her denial (especially to her children) that Joseph ever practiced plural marriage, yet she retained her conviction about his being a true prophet until the end of her life! If anyone should have felt at liberty to expose Joseph for what he “really” was, you would think it would be Emma Hale Smith Bidamon. What was her “vested interest” in maintaining, to her dying day, that Joseph Smith was a true prophet?

What about Oliver Cowdery, the “source” for modern-day judgments on the Fanny Alger “affair?” What was his “vested interest,” years after having been alienated from Joseph Smith and the church, to realign himself with it at the end of his life? David Whitmer? Lyman Wight? Thomas Marsh?

You see, there are all these inexplicable complications to your “vested interest” argument.

Of course, but here you are essentially saying that you work backwards from the a priori conclusion that Joseph Smith was a prophet, so all evidence is filtered through that known "fact."

No. I’m not saying that. What I am saying is that these “goggles” that I choose to wear (Sethbag calls them “belief goggles” – not an altogether imperfect description) permit me to see the “facts” in such a way that I can determine more clearly what is really happening. That does not constitute an a priori conclusion. It is a question of methodology, not of bias.

And therefore I ask again: Which is the most accurate view of the picture? The "illusion" of three-dimensions facilitated by the goggles, or the "reality" of two offset images as seen by the unaided eye?

[_rcrocket]

I'm saying that because we have little written record of complaints does NOT mean they were happy with their situation or Joseph Smith's behavior.

Absence of evidence is a proof that something does not exist, not the other way around as you want to use it -- that it might exist.

We KNOW that women who have been abused, raped, and used in degrading ways typically do NOT discuss their abuse. They do NOT want to relive it. They typically keep it secret and deny it.

As well, women who have been abused report the crimes. What you KNOW is not evidence of anything.

Similarly if the women who were used by Joseph Smith felt degraded or demeaned we can assume they were like most other women and would not want to discuss or share it.

The logic escapes me here. How about, instead: Women of various ages and maturities were reported to have married Joseph Smith, including those who gave affidavits of their experience in a legal challenge brought by the Reorganized Church. Not a one complained of their relationship, even those who swore out affidavits and including those who later left the Church. We must assume, therefore, that the there was no abuse or sadness.