An Insiders View Of Mormon Origins...

[_DarkHelmet]

The marriage is performed in Joseph's office. He thanks the officiator, shakes hands with the bride, and, when they've left, returns to his desk.

That sounds like every girl's dream wedding.

[_Daniel Peterson]

That sounds like every girl's dream wedding.

You complain because Joseph was absurdly lustful. Now, that turning out to be an inaccurate caricature, you complain because he seems to have shown no lust at all.

The common denominator in your two responses says something about you but little to nothing about Joseph.

Interesting, that. Though not particularly surprising.

[_DarkHelmet]

That sounds like every girl's dream wedding.

You complain because Joseph was absurdly lustful. Now, that turning out to be an inaccurate caricature, you complain because he seems to have shown no lust at all.

The common denominator in your two responses says something about you but little to nothing about Joseph.

Interesting, that. Though not particularly surprising.

It says more about polygamy than it does about me. There is nothing contradictory about criticizing a man for being unfaithful to his wife and also criticizing him for being dispassionate to his wife. Only in a polygamous society is a man required to do both.

[_Buffalo]

That sounds like every girl's dream wedding.

You complain because Joseph was absurdly lustful. Now, that turning out to be an inaccurate caricature, you complain because he seems to have shown no lust at all.

The common denominator in your two responses says something about you but little to nothing about Joseph.

Interesting, that. Though not particularly surprising.

I'm not sure you demonstrated anything at all about Joseph's libido. How is a wedding ceremony devoid of romantic love demonstrative of that?

[_schreech]

I don't think that it would be possible, even in theory, to miss the point more completely than you (at least pretend to) have missed it.

Bravo!

And the "Joe" certainly bespeaks your intellectual seriousness. Dialoguing with you would, obviously, be a very valuable use of my time. Unfortunately, though, I've got to . . . chew some gum. Yes. That's it. I'm too busy. Dang.

Its funny how us critics continually seem to miss you/wade/loran/will/etc.'s "point"...sorry that you guys can't seem to write clearly enough for us to actually understand your "point" (although, i am not really sure you actually have a point beyond blind defense of Joe and his stooges regardless of how silly it makes you look...)...

SO..."Joe" wasn't his name? Maybe you SHOULD spend a little more time practicing practicing gum chewing considering blindly defending Joe doesn't seem to be one of your strengths...I suggest "big league chew", its a little more challenging than your standard stick gum but don't let that get you down....

[_jon]

It's amusing to behold, by the way, how my alleged obsession with Grant Palmer's (false and misleading) claim to "insider" status -- an obsession that led me to edit and publish five (5) reviews of his book that supposedly failed to deal with anything of substance in it -- has apparently continued to fuel this thread even though I haven't posted in it (until now) since the morning of Wednesday, 14 July.

Daniel, you seem to be suggesting that you are the root cause for the longevity of this thread rather than Grant Palmers book. Are you feeling left out and want some attention?

[_schreech]

Daniel, you seem to be suggesting that you are the root cause for the longevity of this thread rather than Grant Palmers book. Are you feeling left out and want some attention?

I am guessing he needs some attention....a hug perhaps....

[_Jaybear]

One of the most striking things about a number of Joseph's plural marriages is precisely how dispassionate they were. No sign of lust whatever.

The marriage is performed in Joseph's office. He thanks the officiator, shakes hands with the bride, and, when they've left, returns to his desk.

A difficult thing to account for, given most anti-Mormon paradigms. So better left unmentioned.

***

Difficult to account for? That is exactly what I would expect from a smart lustful conman.

If you are going to try to convince your followers that polygamy was God's idea, and not yours, you can't go out and bed only the 16 year old girls. That's just too obvious.

Throw in a wedding or two to a woman well past her sexual prime, and those who want to believe the absurdity that God wanted Smith to sleep with other women, have just what they need to continue to believe.

All this proves is that Joseph Smith was smarter that Dan Peterson.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Its funny how us critics continually seem to miss you . . . "point"

No. It's rather sad.

And my Mom taught me not to laugh at such things.

Difficult to account for? That is exactly what I would expect from a smart lustful conman.

We "apologists" are often accused by a certain kind of critic of propounding unfalsifiable theories, but this is a good one: Polygamy was motivated by lust, which is demonstrated by Joseph's lustful behavior, for which there is actually very little evidence, which is precisely what one would expect, given that polygamy was motivated by lust.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

If you are going to try to convince your followers that polygamy was God's idea, and not yours, you can't go out and bed only the 16 year old girls. That's just too obvious.

Throw in a wedding or two to a woman well past her sexual prime, and those who want to believe the absurdity that God wanted Smith to sleep with other women, have just what they need to continue to believe.

I said nothing about the ages involved. Absolutely nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisegesis

As a matter of fact, the cases I had in mind did not concern any women past their sexual prime.

All this proves is that Joseph Smith was smarter that Dan Peterson.

Which he probably was. And he was certainly smarter (at least, based on the evidence provided in this thread) than you, to say nothing of the unfortunate schreech. But whether he was or not is of no relevance to anything here.

[_stemelbow]

Dr. Peterson said,

We "apologists" are often accused by a certain kind of critic of propounding unfalsifiable theories, but this is a good one: Polygamy was motivated by lust, which is demonstrated by Joseph's lustful behavior, for which there is actually very little evidence, which is precisely what one would expect, given that polygamy was motivated by lust.

Well said. On this type of topic, with some critics, there is no discussion to be had. No matter what one says, the critic will happily twist to mean his/her point has been vindicated. Its pointless.