Counter-Evidence Regarding Joseph Smith and Plural Marriage

[_Runtu]

I've heard that, but only from apostates. I'm not sure why some apologists are so loath to admit that Joseph ever did anything wrong. My suspicion is that they probably think that such behavior would call into question his prophetic calling, so they can't even consider the matter. But that's just a guess.

I don't believe I've ever heard this from a non-apostate, either.

If calling Joseph's behavior immoral is so very difficult for believers, the idea of Joseph having been a fallen prophet is a non-starter, I'm sure.

Still, it's difficult to argue with outcomes. Joseph was destroyed.[/quote]

Yep. Seems to me that there are two typical responses from apologists:

1. It never happened, and critics are just making it up or putting a terrible spin on the facts when they know better (bcspace and Droopy, for example).

2. It did happen, and it just shows how much more broad-minded and liberal God's morality is than our puny understanding. How dare we judge God's behavior? (Blake Ostler and Will Schryver are good examples.)

[_Runtu]

I don't believe I've ever heard this from a non-apostate, either.

If calling Joseph's behavior immoral is so very difficult for believers, the idea of Joseph having been a fallen prophet is a non-starter, I'm sure.

Still, it's difficult to argue with outcomes. Joseph was destroyed.

Yep. Seems to me that there are two typical responses from apologists:

1. It never happened, and critics are just making it up or putting a terrible spin on the facts when they know better (bcspace and Droopy, for example).

2. It did happen, and it just shows how much more broad-minded and liberal God's morality is than our puny understanding. How dare we judge God's behavior? (Blake Ostler and Will Schryver are good examples.)

[_Tchild]

That 2 people said something, makes it fact that they said what they said. The fact that 2 people said something does not mean what they said is fact.

Sort of like Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery claiming they were visited by angelic ministers conferring the priesthood despite the lack of other corroborating witnesses?

So, you agree that what 2 people said does not mean what they said is fact?

[_3sheets2thewind]

When I first heard of this book, I took a look at it on Amazon.com using the "look inside" feature. The first few pages struck me as bland pablum about "values" and "standards" devoid of any real philosophical insight and weight. I might not have looked further had I not glanced at the Index and found a listing for "Strachey, Lytton."

What on earth could Hinckley be quoting from Strachey?

However, these quotations are taken wildly out of context as they come from Strachey's description of the conventional view of Nightingale, a view he then proceeds to demolish.

Not only does he say he read it, but he read it "once before, long ago." Either he had no reading comprehension, or he simply was making this up. I remember reading this and being dumbfounded. Still makes me chuckle.

Maybe I am missing something, but what is out of context and where does Strachey "demolish" the view of Nightinggale? for reference and here is Eminent Victorians section on Nightinggale.

[_Runtu]

Maybe I am missing something, but what is out of context and where does Strachey "demolish" the view of Nightinggale? for reference and here is Eminent Victorians section on Nightinggale.

Maybe you are missing the sarcasm, the subtle snarkiness of Strachey's treatment of Ms. Nightingale. Either way, he demolishes the myth of the selfless saint, preferring to speak of her as driven and insufferable (at least that's how I read Strachey).

Be that as it may, this thread is not about Hinckley's book. Maybe you'd like to start a thread about that. This one is about counter-evidence supporting Joseph Smith's behavior in regards to plural marriage. So far, such counter-evidence is completely absent.

[_Yoda]

Maybe I am missing something, but what is out of context and where does Strachey "demolish" the view of Nightinggale? for reference and here is Eminent Victorians section on Nightinggale.

Maybe you are missing the sarcasm, the subtle snarkiness of Strachey's treatment of Ms. Nightingale. Either way, he demolishes the myth of the selfless saint, preferring to speak of her as driven and insufferable (at least that's how I read Strachey).

Be that as it may, this thread is not about Hinckley's book. Maybe you'd like to start a thread about that. This one is about counter-evidence supporting Joseph Smith's behavior in regards to plural marriage. So far, such counter-evidence is completely absent.

I find it interesting that when I bothered to republish the evidence that you had furnished a year ago, BC ran scared...again.

I suppose he really couldn't comment when he saw that you were not source-mining, as he accused you of doing.

(Damn! Where is the "roll eyes" smiley when you need it!?)

[_Yoda]

Maybe I am missing something, but what is out of context and where does Strachey "demolish" the view of Nightinggale? for reference and here is Eminent Victorians section on Nightinggale.

Maybe you are missing the sarcasm, the subtle snarkiness of Strachey's treatment of Ms. Nightingale. Either way, he demolishes the myth of the selfless saint, preferring to speak of her as driven and insufferable (at least that's how I read Strachey).

Be that as it may, this thread is not about Hinckley's book. Maybe you'd like to start a thread about that. This one is about counter-evidence supporting Joseph Smith's behavior in regards to plural marriage. So far, such counter-evidence is completely absent.

I find it interesting that when I bothered to republish the evidence that you had furnished a year ago, BC ran scared...again.

I suppose he really couldn't comment when he saw that you were not source-mining, as he accused you of doing.

(Damn! Where is the "roll eyes" smiley when you need it!?)

[_MrStakhanovite]

However, these quotations are taken wildly out of context as they come from Strachey's description of the conventional view of Nightingale, a view he then proceeds to demolish.

Read more carefully...

She was born to the upper class, to party and to dance, to go to the races and look pretty in society. But she would have none of it. Even her parents could not understand her. Her great overwhelming desire was to alleviate pain and suffering, to hasten healing, to make less dreadful the hospitals of the day. She never married. She devoted herself to nursing and became expert according to the training then available.

now...

But one other trial awaited her. The allurements of the world she had brushed aside with disdain and loathing; she had resisted the subtler temptation which, in her weariness, had sometimes come upon her, of devoting her baffled energies to art or literature; the last ordeal appeared in the shape of a desirable young man. Hitherto, her lovers had been nothing to her but an added burden and a mockery; but now—. For a moment, she wavered. A new feeling swept over her—a feeling which she had never known before, which she was never to know again. The most powerful and the profoundest of all the instincts of humanity laid claim upon her. But it rose before her, that instinct, arrayed—how could it be otherwise?—in the inevitable habiliments of a Victorian marriage; and she had the strength to stamp it underfoot.

...

desirable young man? Dust and ashes! What was there desirable in such a thing as that? “In my thirty-first year,” she noted in her diary, “I see nothing desirable but death.”

[_3sheets2thewind]

So far, such counter-evidence is completely absent.

which in my experience is common practice concerning a few issues.

LDS "critic": Statement X
LDS "defender": You are wrong and statement X is wrong
LDS "critic": where is your evidence I am wrong and statement X is wrong
*que crickets, LDS defender exit stage left.

[_Inconceivable]

Why no comments on my post? To me, D&C 121 illustrates the paradox.

Those that argue that Smith somehow behaved within social and religeous norms are deceiving themselves. They're in denial of the preponderance of the evidence.

Either the one and only kind, loving, just, merciful and perfectly charitable God authorized (and commanded) Smith's felonious behavior or he didn't. And if God did, He broke his own rules. Rules I was taught in order to be worthy to "act in God's name".

Jesus commanded that we be perfect like "our father in heaven". Perfect? What's that?

Truth Dancer hit it right on the head as well. Why would the one and only God be obsessed with the secret sexual permiscuity and exploitation of his Mortal Mouthpeice?

The Mormon god's ways are certainly not my ways. Neither are his priorities. I doubt they are any civil persons either.