Is the portrayal of Joseph Smith fair?

[_Blixa]

You know why me, you keep throwing around references to Don Bradley's essay in The Persistence of Polygamy, but clearly you haven't read it or you wouldn't be asking incredibly banal questions like these...

I don't care what you believe, what experiences you had in the 70's in NYC, nor the thread count you prefer in your cotton. But I wish you would be a little bit more honest about things you claim to have read.

And your comments have been proof that you read have it? This is an internet board that is hostile toward Mormonism not an academic forum where academic literature can be dissected and discussed. The tone does not support such discussion on this board.

I'll leave you to use the search feature to find reference to my reading of the essay, owning the book it is published in and commentary on it. And strangely enough, Don and I were talking about this very essay on the phone just last night!

But frankly, that is neither here nor there in relation to your consistently threadbare assertions.

This is not an internet board hostile to Mormonism and devoid of academic discussion. This is a board dedicated to discussions of Mormonism with an unusually open level of moderation. Because of that, the signal-to-noise ratio can be quite high: there are posters who make absurdly ridiculous criticisms of Mormonism and posters who make equally absurd and ridiculous defenses of it.

But that is easily filtered out by anyone desiring a richer discourse. Are you unaware of the unusually high number of academics who regularly post here? People across a number of disciplines as well as those working on issues related to Religion and Mormon Studies? Apparently you've missed a great deal of Don's earlier posting (before he was in grad school), Mike Reed's discussions, Chris Smith's commentary and George Miller's threads. You seem to have no comprehension of Ms.Jack's scholarly expertise (your persistent nastiness toward her is shameful), Mr. Stak's consistently serious discussions of Philosophy and Religious Studies, nor even Aristotle Smith's command of Bible history and literature. The opportunities to learn are astonishing. While I don't currently discuss my own ongoing work in Western Americana and Mormon Studies here because I'm working on original material, when I eventually publish the book born from this research, Sethbag will get a large thank you in the acknowledgments because of information I learned from him here on Mormon Discussions.

Too bad you can't see the intellectual forest for the trees of the three witnesses...

[_DarkHelmet]

Brigham is quoted as saying this:

Brigham Young taught that “if the woman preferred a man higher in authority, and he is willing to take her and her husband gives her up-there is no Bill of divorce required...it is right in the sight of God”. Brigham also explained that the woman, “...would be in a higher glory”

Where on earth is the morality in that? Where did Brigham Young get any inkling that this is something that God in Heaven would approve of in light of the strict admonition that states 'Thou shalt not commit adultery'.

I just don't get it. Honestly I don't.

If you are a TBM, you must believe that Brigham young was a prophet of God. If you are like why me and BC Space, you must obey him and defend him. You have no other choice. If why me or BC Space lived in Brigham Young's time, they would have given up their wives to him if he asked them to, without question. Fortunately, the rest of us can make up our own minds about statements like this.

[_Mary]

If you are a TBM, you must believe that Brigham young was a prophet of God. If you are like why me and BC Space, you must obey him and defend him. You have no other choice. If why me or BC Space lived in Brigham Young's time, they would have given up their wives to him if he asked them to, without question. Fortunately, the rest of us can make up our own minds about statements like this.

That's if people committed to the church and the gospel even know about what Brigham Young said. I was in the church for most of my young life (up until I was around 30) and I am 'still' learning things I didn't know. I'm betting that most people outside the Utah corridor don't know half this stuff, and those that know of its existence won't touch it with a barge pole and really consider the implications because they are happy and content with the lifestyle and belief.

I can't tell you how many times I've heard the following

'I'm not interested'
'I don't care'
'I'm keeping away from that stuff'
'The Book of Mormon is true and that's all I need to know'

and the more recent one

'Polygamy and racism are 'old' news, the church has gotten over it, now everyone else needs to'

I like Max Mueller's point in his recent article. Which goes something along the line of

'If you sweep all your problems under the carpet, all you get is a bumpy carpet'.

[_malkie]

...
This is not an internet board hostile to Mormonism and devoid of academic discussion. This is a board dedicated to discussions of Mormonism with an unusually open level of moderation. Because of that, the signal-to-noise ratio can be quite high: there are posters who make absurdly ridiculous criticisms of Mormonism and posters who make equally absurd and ridiculous defenses of it.
...

Actually, a high SNR is desirable. If the signal-to-noise ratio is too low it mean that the signal is being drowned out by the noise.

(man, it's not often that you get a chance to correct Blixa - I hope she doesn't take it out on me at the end of the term - I need a passing grade in her class )

[_harmony]

But here is what we do know: Fanny had no problem with the sealing. Neither did her parents. Emma had a problem with accepting polygamy and yet, continued to be with joseph with a firm belief in his calling as prophet and in the Book of Mormon. Fanny did not see the relationship as lustful or sex driven. And later in life she did not come out against Joseph. Nor did any other of his wives.

1. Fanny was a teenager, living with a charismatic persuasive man.

2. The sealing keys had NOT been restored. Calling this a marriage is incorrect, both by the law of the land and by the law of the church. This relationship was adultery, pure and simple, perpetuated by a man who went to great lengths to keep the relationship secret.

3. What Fanny thought is immaterial, since Emma is the wronged wife here. And we know what Emma thought: she threw Fanny out of the house.

[_Blixa]

...
This is not an internet board hostile to Mormonism and devoid of academic discussion. This is a board dedicated to discussions of Mormonism with an unusually open level of moderation. Because of that, the signal-to-noise ratio can be quite high: there are posters who make absurdly ridiculous criticisms of Mormonism and posters who make equally absurd and ridiculous defenses of it.
...

Actually, a high SNR is desirable. If the signal-to-noise ratio is too low it mean that the signal is being drowned out by the noise.

(man, it's not often that you get a chance to correct Blixa - I hope she doesn't take it out on me at the end of the term - I need a passing grade in her class )

Thanks for pointing this out, Malkie. I've been misusing that metaphor forever!

[_Yoda]

But here is what we do know: Fanny had no problem with the sealing. Neither did her parents. Emma had a problem with accepting polygamy and yet, continued to be with joseph with a firm belief in his calling as prophet and in the Book of Mormon. Fanny did not see the relationship as lustful or sex driven. And later in life she did not come out against Joseph. Nor did any other of his wives.

1. Fanny was a teenager, living with a charismatic persuasive man.

2. The sealing keys had NOT been restored. Calling this a marriage is incorrect, both by the law of the land and by the law of the church. This relationship was adultery, pure and simple, perpetuated by a man who went to great lengths to keep the relationship secret.

3. What Fanny thought is immaterial, since Emma is the wronged wife here. And we know what Emma thought: she threw Fanny out of the house.

Amen, sister!!

This is what I could never get beyond.

Now, the apologist argument that I have heard is that although the sealing power had not been recorded, Joseph Smith had actually received the sealing power prior to the recorded date, and that his marriage to Fanny was legitimate based on that.

[_harmony]

Now, the apologist argument that I have heard is that although the sealing power had not been recorded, Joseph Smith had actually received the sealing power prior to the recorded date, and that his marriage to Fanny was legitimate based on that.

And to that I say: horse manure. Show me the revelation. And while they're at it, show me the revelation that restored the higher priesthood.

[_Yoda]

Now, the apologist argument that I have heard is that although the sealing power had not been recorded, Joseph Smith had actually received the sealing power prior to the recorded date, and that his marriage to Fanny was legitimate based on that.

And to that I say: horse manure. Show me the revelation. And while they're at it, show me the revelation that restored the higher priesthood.

I say horse manure to it as well, Harm. I was just pointing out that that is the argument I've heard. And, frankly, it is a more legitimate argument than Why Me's argument.

[_malkie]

Now, the apologist argument that I have heard is that although the sealing power had not been recorded, Joseph Smith had actually received the sealing power prior to the recorded date, and that his marriage to Fanny was legitimate based on that.

And to that I say: horse manure. Show me the revelation. And while they're at it, show me the revelation that restored the higher priesthood.

And while they're about that, show me the revelation ending the denial of priesthood to men of certain lineages/races/colours. I've seen the announcement that a revelation was received, but don't believe that anyone has produced the text of the actual revelation.

Am I wrong?