Joseph Smith Megathread

[_AtticusFinch]

Simon, if I may be so bold as to make an observation here?

You are getting slaughtered dude.

You might want to think twice about creating a "Megathread" from here on out.

Really? I hadn't noticed.

that is because you blind and ignorant. Of course, that blindness and ignorance explains why you are still LDS

Although when it's six or seven to one, it might seem that way to one of the six or seven (you).

But the difference here is I am right. I hold the Roosevelt "big stick."

don;t challenge everyone and then complain you are ganged up on. And no, you don;t carry a big stick. You don't carry anything. And your magic underwear ain't helping

[_Simon Belmont]

don;t challenge everyone and then complain you are ganged up on. And no, you don;t carry a big stick. You don't carry anything. And your magic underwear ain't helping

I did not complain.

Your cilice, ecclesiastical rings, Privilège du blanc, religious habit, sanbenito, vimpa, wimple are not helping either.

[_harmony]

[list][*]"Marrying" other men's wives,

It was more common in his day than it is in ours.

It was most certainly NOT more common in his day.

Good grief! Polyandry has NEVER been common, anywhere!

[_AtticusFinch]

don;t challenge everyone and then complain you are ganged up on. And no, you don;t carry a big stick. You don't carry anything. And your magic underwear ain't helping

I did not complain.

Your cilice, ecclesiastical rings, Privilège du blanc, religious habit, sanbenito, vimpa, wimple are not helping either.

good, but since I ain't wearing any of those and you ARE wearing the Satanic magic underwear, your comments was pretty irrelevant.

Much like you

[_Tchild]

During the 1800's it was not uncommon for people to marry in their mid-teens; in the 1400's you got married as young as 12 ( A boy was considered a man, a girl was a woman as soon as she had her first menstrual cycle), something that was extremely common but would be viewed as scandalous in America today. (Currently, Muslim girls can marry at age 12.)

Ahhh, that old "pro-Mormon" chestnut/gem. No Simon, it was NOT common for older men to marry 14yr. old girls. It may have been more common to get married early (both male and female to each other), Nor was it ever common, or even rare for a married older religious man in a position of authority to marry 14yr old girls while still married.

Strike out!

[_Themis]

[list][*]"Marrying" other men's wives,
[*]"Marrying" a 14 year-old,

It was more common in his day than it is in ours. This is not a commentary on the morality of such a thing, because I think that 14 is too young to get married. Bur consider this one, random example: William Clark (of Lewis and Clark) married a 16 year old girl. In addition, the website families.com notes:

It's nice to see you put two issues together Dr Shades brings up and avoided the more problematic one hoping people will think you addressed them both. You also didn't get into how Joseph went about getting Helen and her parents to agree to a marriage.

[_why me]

Joseph Smith is the greatest religious thinker that America has produced. He revolutionized christianity, bringing it to new directions. If he wrote the Book of Mormon and the book of abraham, he had shown himself to be a ground breaker in religious thought. And if he developed his own doctrine for christianity, he brought it to a more humane understanding with his detailed concept of the three kingdoms of glory. Plus, the whole idea of the restoration was wonderful, when we consider what christianity was before Joseph Smith.

And then, we must consider what he also accomplished in his short 38years. He founded cities. Was a general of a militia, and he ran for the priesidency until he was murdered. And he organized communities and was a much beloved leader by the people who followed him. No religious American thinker has ever match Joseph's acute ingenius religious doctrine. He was amazing and most unbiased nonmormons would agree with me.

He is an amazing figure. And I am proud to have him as my avatar.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Where, in my above remarks, did I say anything about "consummation"? That's a distortion on your part.

You did not say anything about consummation, but you conveniently left out that there is no evidence that it ever happened.

You're leaping way, way ahead of yourself, Simon. I never brought up the issue of whether or not Joseph Smith had sex with his plural wives---mainly because it's a separate, albeit related, issue. Honestly: do you think that tossing in this bit about there not being any conclusive evidence that Joseph Smith had sex w/ HMK really does anything to soften the basically unpalatable nature of this historical tidbit?

The question at the heart of all this discussion has to do with whether or not the Church should openly discuss this sort of material, and whether people have any right to feel upset when they realize that this material was apparently withheld from them.

What, really, is the difference between Joseph Smith having a wedding ceremony or sealing with more than one women if (in this case) in wasn't consummated? It then just becomes a ceremony, and one either recognizes that ceremony's meaning, or he does not.

Even if that were the case (and there's no evidence that it was), the fact would remain that Joseph Smith was performing this "ceremony" with a fourteen-year-old girl.

There *is* evidence that Kimball was made Joseph Smith's "wife" via coercive methods.

There very well may be, but I question the source of this evidence. For example, are you aware of this quotation by Helen Mar Kimball concerning being a plural wife?

Sure. And my preference would be to present all sides to LDS members and potential converts, so that they have to opportunity to weigh all the evidence for themselves. You, on the other hand, seem to be suggesting that this stuff should stay "hidden," since it doesn't "bring people to Christ."

The point here is that these sorts of facts tend to get omitted in "official" Church venues. That's been the point all along, and it's the point that you continue to deny---apparently so that you can grant the Church a free pass and absolve it of all wrongdoing.

I have repeatedly stated that the Church is not perfect, and that is has black marks on its history.
I have also repeatedly stated that not every morsel of historical fact is brought up in Church meetings; I believe this is for two reasons:
[list][*]There simply is not enough time, in the one hour Sunday School session, for example, to focus on things that are not part of the official four-fold mission of the Church. It is, after all, what going to Church is for.
[*]Blemishes in the Church's history do not help bring people to Christ.

1. That's no excuse. Much of SS is devoted to rote repetition of things that people already know. Which is more important: yet another dumbed-down lesson about the importance of tithing, or a full and balanced understanding of Church history and doctrine? Furthermore: I don't think that anybody is asking that SS be devoted to the sorts of issues I've mentioned. They could be covered via Church-sanctioned night classes, or in seminary, etc. The point is that they aren't really dealt with *anywhere* in official Church materials. Members are (apparently deliberately) left in the dark.

2. Well, if the "blemishes" are what drive people away, and you are advocating that they shouldn't be discussed, then you really have no case when you argue that people have no right to feel "duped." You are, in effect, like the used car salesman who fails to mention problems with the carburetor, since that wouldn't help bring people to the sales lot.

Again, did my third grade mathematics teacher lie to me when she didn't explain linear algebra?

Mathematics and history are totally separate disciplines. One is a hard science and the other is concerned with the messy complexities of human existence. And I'm not sure that "lie" is the right word. I think that "lie by omission" is more accurate, since it can happen unintentionally.

It's weird that you don't see the obvious contradiction in your own position: you freely admit that that Church has "dark" spots in its past, and yet you are unwilling or unable to see how these "dark" aspects can emotionally wound people.

I see no contradiction. How does a historical fact hurt someone?

Just as I explained earlier: if your wife is screwing around behind your back (or if she *was*), it has the potential to hurt you emotionally. You're being awfully obtuse and dense here, Simon. Are you really so cloistered and shut off from society that you don't know how people can be upset by history? Have you never met any American Indians, or Black people, or Asians?

For example, we are told a mostly romanticized version of the Revolutionary time period in our history classes in grammar school. Upon further reading, the student may discover that Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, and may have had a child with one Sally Hemmings. This information, although slightly disturbing, does not make me hate America, and I do not feel duped by America.

This doesn't hold up for a variety of reasons. Your entire argument rests on the assumption that everyone else should feel the same way you do---e.g., a young African American student has no right to be angered at the "romanticized version" of T. Jefferson. I think that even you can see why this poses a problem.

If not, then put your money where your mouth is: go head and mail a letter to Cornell West, say, in which you explain to him that he has no right to feel angry about the "romanticization" of American history.

Then my point stands: Your analogy involving Bob Ross was sloppy and inaccurate.

Not really, because it is also objectionable that all of Bob Ross's paintings look the same. To some, no doubt, discovering this truth brought much heartache.

Lol. This is about as persuasive and thoughtful as Joseph's Linux comments.

What's your hypothesis for his beheading, then?

I do not believe there is evidence that he was beheaded. He had his ears cut off, and was exiled to Antelope Island for stealing clothing out of grave sites. This has nothing to do with the Church.

His head was found several feet from the rest of his remains. He was reportedly killed by Ephraim Hanks, who was a Church member. His sentence to Antelope Island was recommended by BY. So, yes: it *does* have something "to do with the Church."

Simon: your own argument here has been that the Church never wounds people emotionally via half-truths about its own history.

Yes, except they are not "half-truths" anymore than addition is a mathematical "half-truth" because I didn't learn differential calculus in third grade.

History isn't math, Simon.

You yourself, in your next comment, are going to suggest that the Church doesn't need to tell the full truth because doing so isn't "necessary"! Take a look:

Why do you believe that it is necessary? Do you imagine that every Church session should be an advanced course in history, or should it be a worship service like every other church?

In the end, I don't care, Simon. The Church can carry on as it has been doing. But if it does, people will continue to feel like they've been deceived and lied to. Whether problematic history is covered on Sundays or in some venue is beside the point. The point is that, if the Church wants to come across as an open and honest institution that cares about the truth, then it needs to cover the material at some point---preferably during the missionary discussions.

Likewise, would it be a good idea for my third grade teacher to teach me simple addition before delving into more complex mathematics?

This is a false analogy, since I doubt your 3rd grade teacher asks for 10% of your income. Furthermore, no one is asking that this material be taught to young children. The complaint is that it isn't taught at all! So: it might not be a good idea for your 3rd grade teacher to teach you calculus, but it's perfectly reasonable to expect your high school teachers to cover it. Where is the analogous high school teacher in the Church? Per you, this "person" doesn't exist.

Do history departments at reputable universities count as "organizations"?

Yes. Show me a mathematics 1010 class which teaches and tests on the entire spectrum of known mathematics.

Uhh.... I said "history departments."

The obvious implication here is that telling people up-front about MMM,

We learned about this in Institute.

Which means that you were already an entrenched TBM. How about telling the MMM story to potential converts? You okay with that?

[_why me]

It's nice to see you put two issues together Dr Shades brings up and avoided the more problematic one hoping people will think you addressed them both. You also didn't get into how Joseph went about getting Helen and her parents to agree to a marriage.

In the 1830's, Joseph was known to be sealed to one person. In the early 1840's, from 1841 to 1843 he was sealed to many women. Why? Because he became a horny toad? Probably not. He was a man in a hurry that is for sure. Something was driving him to be sealed to as many as possible. And I am sure that it was not his sex drive. He did what he thought he had to do.

And as the apologist argument goes, his sealings were more about Kinship with families than about sex. And he acted accordingly. And many of the women received powerful witnesses as to the truthfulness of the principle.

[_Themis]

Joseph Smith is the greatest religious thinker that America has produced. He revolutionized christianity, bringing it to new directions. If he wrote the Book of Mormon and the book of abraham, he had shown himself to be a ground breaker in religious thought. And if he developed his own doctrine for christianity, he brought it to a more humane understanding with his detailed concept of the three kingdoms of glory. Plus, the whole idea of the restoration was wonderful, when we consider what christianity was before Joseph Smith.

And then, we must consider what he also accomplished in his short 38years. He founded cities. Was a general of a militia, and he ran for the priesidency until he was murdered. And he organized communities and was a much beloved leader by the people who followed him. No religious American thinker has ever match Joseph's acute ingenius religious doctrine. He was amazing and most unbiased nonmormons would agree with me.

He is an amazing figure. And I am proud to have him as my avatar.

Joseph was an amazing man, unique just like many other great men or women. He was a great borrower of others ideas. My concern has always been whether he was telling the truth about talking to God and such. unfortunately the evidence does not support his or the church's claims today, but Joseph did some amazing things, although others have as well. by the way the Book of Mormon never really did introduce any new doctrines.