Apologetic Argument: Joseph Smith's Man Love

[_sock puppet]

I'm not the one saying the Church is true and I can prove it (the question of what that would even mean is never even addressed here).

Per the underline, there is hardly a day goes by but that on MDB the epistemological questions as concerning what religious truth would be and what is required for their proof are addressed.

[_brade]

That doesn't have anything to do with a critic's claim that the Church is proven not true, or that the Church cannot possibly be true.

Certainly some critics claim that the Church is proven not true and some critics claim that the Church cannot possibly be true. However, I think most sophisticated critical arguments do not attempt to defend either of those claims. The latter seems to me obviously false.

My understanding of most sophisticated and academic critical arguments against Church positions or Church apologists' positions is that the conclusion being defended is that the best available evidence doesn't form a reasonable basis to believe that the Church's claims are true. That's quite a different claim than that the Church isn't true (for my part, it's not even clear to me what the expression 'the Church isn't true' ought to mean), or that the Church cannot possibly be true. As a critic, I'm skeptical of the former, and I just think the latter is outright false.

My point is, I think those two claims do not characterize conclusions of the strongest arguments against Church claims.

[_Buffalo]

Brigham Young was completely indifferent toward women.

"Elders, never love your wives one hair's breadth further than they adorn the Gospel, never love them so but that you can leave them at a moment's warning without shedding a tear. Should you love a child any more than this? No. Here are Apostles and Prophets who are destined to be exalted with the Gods, to become rulers in the kingdom of our Father, to become equal with the Father and the Son, and will you let your affections be unduly placed on anything this side that kingdom and glory? If you do, you disgrace your calling and Priesthood. The very moment that persons in this Church suffer their affections to be immoderately placed upon an object this side the celestial kingdom, they disgrace their profession and calling. When you love your wives and children, are fond of your horses, your carriages, your fine houses, your goods and chattels, or anything of an earthly nature, before your affections become too strong, wait until you and your family are sealed up unto eternal lives, and you know they are yours from that time henceforth and for ever.

"I will now ask the sisters, do you believe that you are worthy of any greater love than you bestow upon your children? Do you believe that you should be beloved by your husbands and parents any further than you acknowledge and practise the principle of eternal lives? Every person who understands this principle would answer in a moment, "Let no being's affections be placed upon me any further than mine are on eternal principles-principles that are calculated to endure and exalt me, and bring me up to be an heir of God and a joint heir with Jesus Christ." This is what every person who has a correct understanding would say."

- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v. 3, p. 354

Brigham publicly proclaimed that he preferred the company of men to women. Hallelujah!

[_sock puppet]

That doesn't have anything to do with a critic's claim that the Church is proven not true, or that the Church cannot possibly be true.

Certainly some critics claim that the Church is proven not true and some critics claim that the Church cannot possibly be true. However, I think most sophisticated critical arguments do not attempt to defend either of those claims. The latter seems to me obviously false.

My understanding of most sophisticated and academic critical arguments against Church positions or Church apologists' positions is that the conclusion being defended is that the best available evidence doesn't form a reasonable basis to believe that the Church's claims are true.

I agree.

That's quite a different claim than that the Church isn't true (for my part, it's not even clear [b]to me[/b] what the expression 'the Church isn't true' ought to mean), ... .

When you believed, what 'truth' did you understand the Church to be proclaiming? The Church itself has essentially defined 'not true' by specifying what it claims to be true.

[_Buffalo]

Proponents may continue to struggle in frustration at their inability to prove that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did not have it going on. But evidence may come forth someday to support our belief, and in the absence of proof to refute that belief, we are perfectly justified in maintaining it.

You can feel justified in maintaining whatever you like, DJ. I see no reason to go after people for believing something that another may or may not feel is true. You may very well find a reason to not believe Mormonism, just as many poeple might find reason to not believe your stupid little analogy-game. So? That doesn't have anything to do with a critic's claim that the Church is proven not true, or that the Church cannot possibly be true. The majority here is here claiming Mormonism is not true. To argue against the notion that the Church is untrue it is not necessary to prove it true. It is only necessary to address your silly claims. And yes, by and large they come out quite silly.

I'm not the one saying the Church is true and I can prove it (the question of what that would even mean is never even addressed here). I am here seeing others claim the Church is proven untrue. Well get to showing the proof then.

Why are you attacking his faith? Are you some sort of atheist or something?

Anyway, it's already been proved that essential elements of the church are untrue, such as the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham. But you can't prove that Joseph wasn't going Brokeback Mountain on Brother Brigham.

[_stemelbow]

Certainly some critics claim that the Church is proven not true and some critics claim that the Church cannot possibly be true. However, I think most sophisticated critical arguments do not attempt to defend either of those claims. The latter seems to me obviously false.

I can agree with you.

My understanding of most sophisticated and academic critical arguments against Church positions or Church apologists' positions is that the conclusion being defended is that the best available evidence doesn't form a reasonable basis to believe that the Church's claims are true. That's quite a different claim than that the Church isn't true (for my part, it's not even clear to me what the expression 'the Church isn't true' ought to mean), or that the Church cannot possibly be true. As a critic, I'm skeptical of the former, and I just think the latter is outright false.

Fair enough. Much like the likelihood of Jesus having risen from the dead is quite low so are the other claims of the Church. That is largely why it is faith.

[_brade]

When you believed, what 'truth' did you understand the Church to be proclaiming? The Church itself has essentially defined 'not true' by specifying what it claims to be true.

What I was getting at is that the expression 'the Church isn't true' (and, likewise, 'the Church is true') is at least ambiguous and at worst not even a statement at all.

[_Morley]

This is a list of Joseph Smith’s purported ‘wives’:

Emma Hale
Fanny Alger
Lucinda Morgan Harris
Louisa Beaman
Zina Huntington Jacobs
Presendia Huntington Buell
Agnes Coolbrith
Sylvia Sessions Lyon
Mary Rollins Lightner
Patty Bartlett Sessions
Marinda Johnson Hyde
Elizabeth Davis Durfee
Sarah Kingsley Cleveland
Delcena Johnson
Eliza R. Snow
Sarah Ann Whitney
Martha McBride Knight
Ruth Vose Sayers
Flora Ann Woodworth
Emily Dow Partridge
Eliza Maria Partridge
Almera Johnson
Lucy Walker
Sarah Lawrence
Maria Lawrence
Helen Mar Kimball
Hanna Ells
Elvira Cowles Holmes
Rhoda Richards
Desdemona Fullmer
Olive Frost
Melissa Lott
Nancy Winchester
Fanny Young

We all know the prophet was married to Emma Hale. If one leaves out Emma (his only legal wife), then one thing becomes obvious from this list. Joseph Smith’s wives begin with Fanny and end with Fanny.

The last on this list is Fanny Young, supposedly Brigham Young’s ‘sister.’ But is this what it means, really? From the apologists, we know that there were all types of scribal errors in those days. There were also all types of fannies. Could ‘Fanny Young’ have meant something else? Something, perhaps, even closer to Brigham than his sister?

[_Buffalo]

This is a list of Joseph Smith’s purported ‘wives’:

Emma Hale
Fanny Alger
Lucinda Morgan Harris
Louisa Beaman
Zina Huntington Jacobs
Presendia Huntington Buell
Agnes Coolbrith
Sylvia Sessions Lyon
Mary Rollins Lightner
Patty Bartlett Sessions
Marinda Johnson Hyde
Elizabeth Davis Durfee
Sarah Kingsley Cleveland
Delcena Johnson
Eliza R. Snow
Sarah Ann Whitney
Martha McBride Knight
Ruth Vose Sayers
Flora Ann Woodworth
Emily Dow Partridge
Eliza Maria Partridge
Almera Johnson
Lucy Walker
Sarah Lawrence
Maria Lawrence
Helen Mar Kimball
Hanna Ells
Elvira Cowles Holmes
Rhoda Richards
Desdemona Fullmer
Olive Frost
Melissa Lott
Nancy Winchester
Fanny Young

We all know the prophet was married to Emma Hale. If one leaves out Emma (his only legal wife), then one thing becomes obvious from this list. Joseph Smith’s wives begin with Fanny and end with Fanny.

The last on this list is Fanny Young, supposedly Brigham Young’s ‘sister.’ But is this what it means, really? From the apologists, we know that there were all types of scribal errors in those days. There were also all types of fannies. Could ‘Fanny Young’ have meant something else? Something, perhaps, even closer to Brigham than his sister?

Using the principles of substantial word analysis and cypher theory pioneered by Dr Schryver, I have decoded these names. Joseph's "wives" were as follows.

Algernon Smith
Larry Harris
Lou Beaman
Zelph Jacobs
Pat Buell
Al Coolbrith
Sam Lyon
Marty Lightner
Pat Sessions
Mark Hyde
Eli Durfee
Sam Cleveland
Del Johnson
Eli R. Snow
Sam Whitney
Martin McBride Knight
Rudy Sayers
Frank Woodworth
Emo Partridge
Eli Partridge
Al Johnson
Lou Walker
Sam Lawrence
Martin Lawrence
He-Man Mar Kimball
Hal Ells
Elvis Cowles Holmes
Rod Richards
Desmond Fullmer
Oliver Frost
Melvin Lott
Nancy Boy Winchester
Brigham Young

[_Darth J]

You can feel justified in maintaining whatever you like, DJ. I see no reason to go after people for believing something that another may or may not feel is true.

Every time someone finds specious reasoning in Mormon apologetics and says so, it's basically Haun's Mill all over again.

You may very well find a reason to not believe Mormonism, just as many poeple might find reason to not believe your stupid little analogy-game. So? That doesn't have anything to do with a critic's claim that the Church is proven not true, or that the Church cannot possibly be true.

Can you absolutely prove that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young could not possibly have been lovers?

Speaking of things being proven not true, do you believe that the Loch Ness Monster lives in your house? How can you know for sure? Can you prove it is not true, or cannot possibly be true?

What exactly does it mean to prove that something "cannot possibly be true"?

The majority here is here claiming Mormonism is not true. To argue against the notion that the Church is untrue it is not necessary to prove it true.

Stemelbow, since you have failed to prove that Joseph and Brigham were homosexual lovers, why shouldn't we believe it? Nobody yet has shown that it isn't true.

It is only necessary to address your silly claims. And yes, by and large they come out quite silly.

From what I hear, to argue against the notion that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were not homosexual lovers, it is not necessary to prove that they were lovers.

I'm not the one saying the Church is true and I can prove it (the question of what that would even mean is never even addressed here). I am here seeing others claim the Church is proven untrue. Well get to showing the proof then.

Looks like a bunch of fussin' and whimperin' and whining because you can't prove that our beliefs are not true. It's nothin' much. Go ahead and pout, Stemelbow.

You seem to be opposed to the idea that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were lovers. But all you're doing is saying that such a belief is "silly." The scriptures tell us that the righteous will be ridiculed for our belief. So if we are being ridiculed, it must mean that what we believe is true. Your persecuting us is proof that the scriptures are true.