Thank you Mercury!

[_Jason Bourne]

What I would like someone to explain to me is, when and who decided that it was time to make these wives more than "for eternity alone"? In other words, the defender's are alway proclaiming that Joseph did not have sex with these young wives (or old ones either). But suddenly after his death, it was 'have at it'? Brigham, John T., Heber and the rest could do the sex thing with their wives they were collecting. But Joseph and Hyrum......nooooo! All they did was a ceremony. No consumating. (yeah, right)

Doesn't make much sense.....does it?

It doesn't make any sense. The purpose of plural marriage was, supposedly, to "raise righteous seed".

Once again other than those who deny Joseph Smith was involved in polygamy at all I do not see LDS defenders denying he had sexual relations with the wives that were other than polyandrous or young.

Jesus Christ. What's wrong with you?

What the hell is wrong with you? All I did was point out the most apologists don't argue that Joseph Smith did not have sex with most his wives. Just they argue that he did no have sex with the younger wives and the polyandrous wives. Why does this bug you?

[_rcrocket]

Perhaps you understand now?

I truncated nothing. The words you add were not part of the sentence Beastie intentionally left out.

Even so the sentence you add adds nothing.

[_rcrocket]

z

My distinct impression Bob after reading literally hundreds of your posts is that you are not as indiscriminate in assessing evidence as you suppose. Perhaps in you 'scholarly' work you are more indiscriminate, but I see little evidence of objectivity, or even attempt at objectivity, in how you personally assess evidence nor that you are willing to engage in the type of critical self introspection that such objectivity requires.

I hate it when people demand that others read prior posts, but I challenge you to point me to a post of mine where I rely upon weak evidence to make a point, and reject stronger evidence. To me, the analysis of the anti-Mormon psyche compels me to look to the quality of the evidence arrayed against Joseph Smith. I focus on that evidence. Since you rarely debate matters of historical significance, because it probably does not interest you and I doubt you have a library of many historical works dealing with Mormonism, you and I rarely cross swords on history.

[_Jason Bourne]

Not even God can guarantee righteous seed. Look at Satan.

Any religion that makes Satan a "child of God" in the first place has serious issues.[/quote]

Even in traditional Christianity Satan was and angel and a chosen one at that. In traditional Christianity God created this angel with full knowledge of the evil that would come from him. This creates serious issues as well.

[_Chap]

Chap writes:

Since Mr Crocket evidently does not feel that Compton is an 'anti-Mormon' writer, may I, as an eirenic contribution to the discussion, draw attention to a discussion by Compton prompted by attacks from those who (like Crocket) wish to suggest that sexuality is not to be thought of a taking place within those of Joseph Smith's plural marriage that were polyandrous (I.e. the women already had husbands? As you will see, Compton's view is that Josephine's affidavit is "the most explicit evidence for sexuality and offspring in all of Smith's plural marriages, polyandrous or polygynist." He also concludes that "as things stand now, the weight of the evidence suggests that the polyandrous marriages were generally for time, as well as for eternity, and probably included sexuality."

This thread is about Helen Whitney, as I recall. But, your post certainly demonstrates substantial naïveté about the historical method. Just because I quote from Compton on one source does not mean I must accept everything he has to say. I don't. Prescott cites often and routinely from Spanish sources of which he is critical. Durant is often critical of his sources. It is possible to mine truths from the dung heap and, often the truth is often stronger when it is sitting amongst the turds.

I have run to ground several of Compton's claims and I don't agree with some of them. I disagree with him on Josephine Lyon because I don't think he has adequately considered the alternative. I can read the sources as easily as can he. Compton has come under considerable criticism for the way he accepts some evidence and not others.

Chap says:

Mr Crocket of course doesn't think of doing that. None the less, when he finds two statements of Compton that he likes, he cites Compton's support, while however for no adduced reason taking exception to the third (that the Lewis passage is "worth considering."), which he appears to find less congenial.

This is pretty funny. Lewis is very well known among historians. I wish I had her book; I'd post some excerpts. I'll see if I can locate it. But, once again, Mr. Chap has about a college sophomore's understanding of the historical method -- in for a penny in for a pound on a source you cite. Too bad it doesn't work that way. If I were Kevin Graham I could place some good drop kicks at this point. But, I try to be polite

Mr Crocket's understanding of how historians work is an odd one. Yet again he goes on about this strange construct called 'the historical method', as if there was a single set of approaches to their work shared by all who call themselves historians.

I am supposed to be have only a sophomoric understanding of this wonderful tool, about which I am 'naïve'. Well, if I was grading a sophomore's essay that talked about 'the historical method' the way Crocket does, I'd be tempted to go for a 'D'. It's about the same as thinking there is a single uncontroversial thing called 'the scientific method' for instance.

I am happy to let readers judge between the value of Compton's conclusions and those of Crocket when they have read the substantial online material by Compton (a faithful Mormon) to which I link, and from which I quoted above.

I do not of course think that Crocket has to accept Compton holus bolus if he agrees with him on one or two points. But it is no kind of argument, historical or otherwise, to expect readers to accept his ex cathedra statements about what is or is not reliable in Compton's work without a shred of actual evidence cited to back up the selection made. Crocket is not an authority whose unsupported word many people on this board will feel they have to accept ...

[_rcrocket]

Even in traditional Christianity Satan was and angel and a chosen one at that. In traditional Christianity God created this angel with full knowledge of the evil that would come from him. This creates serious issues as well.

In the Job paradigm, Satan is considered one of the sons of God, or at least he hangs with the sons of God and is part of God's retinue. As Matthew Henry puts it, "The angels attended God's throne and Satan among them." Matthew Henry, on Job 2 (page 517).

Also, as he describes Job 1: "A meeting of the angels in heaven. They are the sons of God. Satan was one of them originally." Matthew Henry, at p. 516.

This theology disturbs evangelical Christians, who tend to diminish the theology taught in Job as uncorroborated.

[_rcrocket]

I am happy to let readers judge between the value of Compton's conclusions and those of Crocket when they have read the substantial online material by Compton (a faithful Mormon) to which I link, and from which I quoted above.

I do not of course think that Crocket has to accept Compton holus bolus if he agrees with him on one or two points. But it is no kind of argument, historical or otherwise, to expect readers to accept his ex cathedra statements about what is or is not reliable in Compton's work without a shred of actual evidence cited to back up the selection made. Crocket is not an authority whose unsupported word many people on this board will feel they have to accept ...

I don't pretend to speak ex cathedra. Unlike almost all my critics on this Board, I cite chapter and verse and I have my sources I cite.

[_Chap]

Perhaps you understand now?

I truncated nothing. The words you add were not part of the sentence Beastie intentionally left out.

Even so the sentence you add adds nothing.

Could it be, then, that you didn't even know that the material from Josephine's affidavit included the words in bold:

Just prior to my mothers death in 1882 she called me to her bedside and told me that her days on earth were about numbered and before she passed away from mortality she desired to tell me something which she had kept as an entire secret from em and from all others but which she now desired to communicate to me. She then told me that I was the daughter of the Prophet Joseph Smith, she having been sealed to the Prophet at the time that her husband Mr. Lyon was out of fellowship with the Church... In conclusion mother told me not to make her statement to me too public, as it might cause trouble and rouse unpleasant curiosity.

It's beginning to look like it. Scandalously inadequate research (that is what one says, isn't it?)

It might be worth having a poll to see whether people are persuaded that the last sentence sound a lot more like a reference to sex rather than sealing. I don't think many people will agree with Crocket that it 'adds nothing' to our context of interpretation for what Josephine's mother told her.

[_guy sajer]

z

My distinct impression Bob after reading literally hundreds of your posts is that you are not as indiscriminate in assessing evidence as you suppose. Perhaps in you 'scholarly' work you are more indiscriminate, but I see little evidence of objectivity, or even attempt at objectivity, in how you personally assess evidence nor that you are willing to engage in the type of critical self introspection that such objectivity requires.

I hate it when people demand that others read prior posts, but I challenge you to point me to a post of mine where I rely upon weak evidence to make a point, and reject stronger evidence. To me, the analysis of the anti-Mormon psyche compels me to look to the quality of the evidence arrayed against Joseph Smith. I focus on that evidence. Since you rarely debate matters of historical significance, because it probably does not interest you and I doubt you have a library of many historical works dealing with Mormonism, you and I rarely cross swords on history.

I am not referring to a particular post but to a large body of work. And, as I've tried to make plain (but apparently failed), I'm not referring to your historical or scholarly work but how you personally process and evaluate evidence for your own beliefs. I see little there to suggest that you approach questions of personal belief objectively (including how history affects your personal belief), nor do I see evidence of critical self-reflection, which I think is part and parcel of true objectivity.

That said, I don't think anyone is really very objective, so you're no worse that, say, Scratch, but certainly no better. But here is where I think apostates have a leg up on believers, our very apostasy implies capacity for objectivity (in my case, for example, I decided to evaluate Mormonism's claims using the same standards of evidence I apply to others' beliefs), whereas the true believer offers very little cause to infer capacity for objectivity.

I do not wade too much into Mormon history, as I have read comparatively little of it, but enough to conclude that Joseph Smith was a lying, deceiving, adulterous fraud. Now, if you want to talk military history, I'm game.

[_Coca Cola]

I do not wade too much into Mormon history, as I have read comparatively little of it, but enough to conclude that Joseph Smith was a lying, deceiving, adulterous fraud. Now, if you want to talk military history, I'm game.

May I just add to Guy Sajer's earlier list re: Joseph Smith -

After Joseph Smith was supposedly told in the 1820 vision that none of the churches were true and he should join none of them - that he joined the Methodists in (I think) 1828, until they kicked him out for his treasure hunting escapades.