Sarah Pratt: Credible Witness?

[_beastie]

Maybe people can understand this better if they think about their own daughters being involved in such a situation. If a very powerful, older, married man persuaded your young daughter to become his mistress by holding out enticements to her, would you (father or mother) feel that your young daughter had been manipulated and used?

Another thought on the situation - if a woman freely offers herself in exchange for some enticement, be it financial incentives or the promise of exaltation for her family - has she, in a way, sold herself?

[_beastie]

Speaking of Martha Brotherton, isn't it interesting that the church mouthpiece labeled her a whore from her mother's breast - and yet Brigham Young still had her sealed to him after her death?

But really, for all those who talk about how wonderful marriage to Joseph Smith must have been - it's time for a reality check. Joseph - whether due to Emma's disapproval or due to lack of time - had no substantial relationships with these women. If they were "honored", it was due to the prestige of having their name linked to the Alpha Male.

[_rcrocket]

I'm saying absence of evidence does not prove something did not exist.

In your world, perhaps, but it is true that the absence of evidence leads to the inferential proof that something does not exist, especially where there is every opportunity for the proof to surface.

Given no negative statements from Joseph Smith's wives, despite (1) affidavits they made in the press, (2) their known identities and availability to enemies of the church, and (3) the departure of some of them from the church, the absence of negative statements from them does, in fact, imply inferential proof there was nothing negative for them to report.

You, however, argue that the absence of negative statements from Joseph Smith's wives does not rule out the presence of negative statements. That is true, but you then take the next illogical step. Because they are not ruled out, they must/should/may/might exist.

And now, your friend Beastie jumps on the bandwagon for this illogical idiocy. Carry on, you two. The quality of your analysis is poor.

[_harmony]

What I have a problem with is alpha men who use God as an excuse to get women to sleep with them. And, I have a problem with men claiming GOD's way is to have women be used.

Yes, yes, yes. And when you can produce evidence that this is what Joseph Smith did, then I suppose your statement will acquire some degree of relevance to our discussion.

Angel/sword/death. What part of that story don't you understand, Will? The part about Joseph using God as the hammer to getting women to marry him?

I find fault with any man who used the God excuse to manipulate, coerce, and threaten girls and women to be used sexually for his pleasure.

Yes, yes, yes. And when you can produce evidence that this is what Joseph Smith did, then I suppose your statement will acquire some degree of relevance to our discussion.

Read up on Martha Brotherton and what happened to her, after she turned the Prophet down. The manipulation is so easily discernible, even an apologist can see it. Although in your case, discernment doesn't seem to be your strong point.

It is like a molester saying to a child, "I will kill your parents if you do not get in the car with me." Ya know? Not exactly a healthy real choice.

Yes, yes, yes. And when you can produce evidence that this is what Joseph Smith did, then I suppose your statement will acquire some degree of relevance to our discussion.

Helen Mar Kimball. Poor girl was led like a sheep to the slaughter by her father, no less. "Save us all, Helen. Sacrifice yourself so we'll all be exalted. Resist the Prophet's advances and we all perish."

Sweet choice, that. NOT.

But again, Joseph Smith is like all other men who have blamed God for their sexual misbehavior's.

I’m not aware that Joseph Smith ever acknowledged any “sexual misbehavior,” let alone blamed God for it.

ROTFL. So now denying rehensible behavior is grounds for hero worship?Every despot since time began has deniability then.

[_beastie]

Sure, bob, sure, you have the stronger hand here.

Good grief. Some part of your brain has to recognize that if any man other than someone your religious beliefs declare to be a "true" prophet engaged in this behavior, you would roundly condemn it. But that part of your brain turns off when the topic is your own religion.

David Koresh convinced his women they were chosen by God to be his sexual partners to raise a pure generation. I'm sure they were honored, as well. The majority of them didn't complain, either.

[_truth dancer]

You, however, argue that the absence of negative statements from Joseph Smith's wives does not rule out the presence of negative statements. That is true, but you then take the next illogical step. Because they are not ruled out, they must/should/may/might exist.

I have not taken your next illogical step and stated that these girls and women felt abused or used or degraded.

In fact I have clearly stated that they indeed may be the type of girls and women who enjoys attachment to the alpha male.

I do not think this is the case because of the reasons I have shared nevertheless it could be.

Similarly to all girls and women who sexually attach themselves for one reason or another to wealthy powerful men. I know a few girls and women who would gladly sleep with a sports star for a night just to say they have done it. I know women who feel privileged if a powerful man wants to have sex with them. And there are girls who would be happy to sleep with a popular guy. It is quite reasonable to assume some of the dozens of girls and women who became part of Joseph Smith's harem felt special, got a boost to their self-esteem, were glad that they secured a place in the CK for their families, thought they were part of the elite, chosen of God, felt privileged to be with Joseph Smith etc.

My issue with Joseph Smith, is the same issue I have with other powerful men who claim God (or an angel) commanded them to have sex with/marry girls and women.

What amazes me is that some folks justify Joseph Smith's sexual behavior but if ANY other man did such things, these same folks would throw the guy in prison. When other cult or religious leaders engage in similar behavior these same folks are all over it. Or, if a married thirty-something neighbor man told your fourteen year old daughter God wants her to be his, most fathers would NOT be OK with it.

I find it odd.

Again, my point, because girls and women do not share abuse with the world does not mean they are not abused, (whether we are talking about your next door neighbor or Joseph Smith's harem).


~dancer~

[_beastie]

You say I have a vested interest. What is it? I really want to know. Because, from my point of view, there are a host of sacrifices that must be made for me to remain faithful to the precepts of the gospel Joseph Smith taught. I would much rather tip back a Pilsner Urquel, or maybe smoke a joint or two on the weekends, or go on the road and rock the socks off adoring fans in smoky clubs, or get back the quarter of a million dollars I have paid in tithing and take my wife on a round-the-world second honeymoon for an entire year, or not have to waste hour upon hour in poorly-managed ecclesiastical meetings, or be able to tell a relief society counselor that she’s being a petty bitch for looking down her nose at another woman in the ward who isn’t quite as “orthodox” as she “ought” to be. I would no longer be mocked and ridiculed when I go among unbelieving friends or associates. I would no longer have to be associated with a religious belief system that is widely disparaged as the acme of stupidity and its adherents the most egregious examples of gullibility in our world today.

There are two things that really strike me in this. One is how frequently "adoring fans" or the audience factors into Will's imagination. That doesn't mean anything significant, but does amuse me.

The second is more serious:

I would no longer have to be associated with a religious belief system that is widely disparaged as the acme of stupidity and its adherents the most egregious examples of gullibility in our world today.

I think this uncomfortable knowledge - that Mormonism is widely disparaged as, well, stupid, and its adherents gullible - really galls certain believers - those who are "in the world" in terms of education and perhaps business success. They have a taste of the respect of their peers, and they want more of that respect. But they can't get it in terms of their religious beliefs. I have often had this sense of underlying anger in MADdites which often spews out in (really silly) poses of academic superiority. Apologists know that the educated of the world tend to view their beliefs as stupid, and view believers as gullible. And it drives them crazy.

[_mentalgymnast]

What amazes me is that some folks justify Joseph Smith's sexual behavior...

Hi TD. Polygamy/polyandry can be discussed and debated till the cows come home. Whatever happened, happened. We are out of touch with the players except through the written word. Joseph Smith himself is accountable to God for whatever he did. We know he was not a perfect man. The question is, was he a good man? Was he good enough to permit God to work through him as a prophet of the restoration?

I think that as the whole of the picture is observed from a distance that there is reason to believe so. To focus on one part of an aged canvas at a time without moving back and observing the whole view/perspective is myopic.

Regards,
MG

[_sunstoned]

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.

This is an interesting perspective coming from an apologist. Could we apply this same reasoning to something like the overwhelming lack of physical evidence for the Book of Mormon?

[_harmony]

Joseph Smith himself is accountable to God for whatever he did.

This alone gives me hope.