Joseph Smith mega thread. We'll see

[_stemelbow]

I meant to say that "it" (his polygamy) was sexual. Awkward phrasing even so. I meant, that he had sexual relationships with his plural wives.

Which wives, where?

And the evidence is that his wives said it was sexual. Furthermore, D&C 132 says the whole purpose of it is for procreation.

of "it"?

Did Joseph Smith or especially his wives claim that the polygamous relationship they were in was platonic? That would be evidence for a platonic relationship.

I dn't know if they did or not. I guess I can poke around and see.

[_stemelbow]

Not at all, but I can tell you are being to sensitive.

I hear ya...that is what my wife accuses me of, quite often. pep pep.

Well you did try and compare knowing about Joseph relationships with some of his wives with a 4 years olds use of the word knowing the church is true.

Exactly neither a four year old or you really "know".

Don't balme us for you being inconsistent.

Well wait, do you criticize it when a four year old gets up and claims he/she knows the Church is true or not? it seems like earlier you seemed to indicate that. My goodness, i don't think we need to even take this to the four year old level. Do you criticize LDS that are grownups for claiming to know the Church is true even if they don't seem to know?

I agree with Buffalo that you are doing like many apologists(his example of Simon is very good) and using the word know in a very absolute manor when it comes to issues you do not want to recognize.

But you accused me of inconsistency here. In what way have I been inconsistent? I don't use the word know loosely. I don't know where you get the idea that I do, as you have done?

People in church say they know usually based on subjective inner sensation expereinecs. This is no where near the same as one who is saying they know Joseph had sex with some of his wives based on multiple piecses of evdience from friendly sources. bringing up the 4 year is even worse.

Wel, I did offer to drop the whole issue, but it appears to me you are maintaining inconsistency here. Do you know or not? How do you know? Or are you saying the evidence weighs in favor of your proposition?

[_Themis]

I dn't know if they did or not. I guess I can poke around and see.

It is a good idea to do a lot more poking around on the polygamy and other issues so you wont always be questioning things you should already have looked up. You may be able to find a wife or two who says they didn't have sex with Joseph, but it is irrelevent becuase we have a number of wives and other sources that say he did with a number of them. I am confident that Joseph probably did not have sex with all of them.

[_Themis]

Exactly neither a four year old or you really "know". ?

Now I just think you are being dishonest.

Well wait, do you criticize it when a four year old gets up and claims he/she knows the Church is true or not? it seems like earlier you seemed to indicate that. My goodness, i don't think we need to even take this to the four year old level. Do you criticize LDS that are grownups for claiming to know the Church is true even if they don't seem to know?

I do not sritize the four years old. I understand well why they are saying it and why. They have no bais other then they believe what they are told. I think you know full well that we have much more to go on that using the owrd know is approproate. Again stop with the absolute use of the word know.

But you accused me of inconsistency here. In what way have I been inconsistent? I don't use the word know loosely. I don't know where you get the idea that I do, as you have done?

You did in comparing the four year olds use with the church being true and our use of the word know inregards to Joseph having sex with some of his wives.

Wel, I did offer to drop the whole issue, but it appears to me you are maintaining inconsistency here. Do you know or not? How do you know? Or are you saying the evidence weighs in favor of your proposition

And yet you show no inconsistancy in what we have said. I think you are just saying this again becuase you are being offended again. I am not trying to be mean here. Now the word know is not meant to be absolute as you try to use it when it suits you. I do use it here based on suffiecient evidence to be confident that the proposition is true. Hey, even most apologists are in agreement with the critics here. The four year old does not have any of this, nor really does the adult member saying they know the church is true. Even some members aviod the use of know and use believe.

[_sock puppet]

Is polygamy inherently immoral?

Yes, it is highly immoral in the context of a liberated society that recognizes the value of women as equal to that of men, and recognizes the need for children to be raised in nurturing environments with adequate resources, including two parents.

Fidelity and marriage are social components to encourage a stable home life in which a child can grow with adequate nurturing and resources, as contrasted with the woman alone bearing those burdens. It normally takes 18 to 22 years to raise a human to self-sufficiency in our complex world. It is immoral for the male to impregnate the woman, and then leave her to do all that raising and nurturing alone.

Short of communal living, it is immoral both to the child and the mother for the father to not be there on a regular and routine basis. Even the 'stretched thin' nature of a father in a polygamous situation was demonstrated in the recently ended series, Big Love. All three wives lived in next door houses, but there wasn't enough of Bill to go around for parenting all those children.

In a society that recognizes that men and women are and should be treated equally, how do you justify polygyny? If you toss in polyandry, such as each time the husband gets to add a new wife to the mix, the (first) wife gets to add a new husband, all you have is a long-term orgy going on.

So, for me, yes, polygamy is inherently immoral for several practical reasons.

uh...many of your points here seem to be addressing whether a man having children and then leaving them/ignoring them is inherently moral.

Or that he is spreading his fatherly duties thinner than he should because he is attending to more than one wife and the children of other wives. Get it?

[_sock puppet]

Many of his wives went on record, on behalf of the church no less, stating that the relationships were sexual. Were they lying, Stem?

Who knows, but that's my point, Buffalo.

Let's suppose that BY had them lie about having sex with JSJr, where does that leave your beloved LDS Church since the line of authority runs right through BY?

[_sock puppet]

It's strong evidence in favor of a sexual relationship, stem. Your line of reasoning could be used to cast unreasonable doubt on literally anything.

Are you familiar with the phrase, "belief should scale with the evidence"?

I get that "strong" evidence can lend more credibility to claims, but turning that into knowing just for rhetorical effect doesn't do discussions any favors, if you ask me.

Then you'd be advocating for a wholesale abandonment of the word 'know'.

[_Themis]

I get that "strong" evidence can lend more credibility to claims, but turning that into knowing just for rhetorical effect doesn't do discussions any favors, if you ask me.

Then you'd be advocating for a wholesale abandonment of the word 'know'.

This is the problem when people like stem, and many apologists are guilty of it, try to use the word know in absolute terms. We can't know anything for certain or in any absolute way. I think many members do this as a way of protecting beliefs they have. If we can't be absolutely sure about something, even it it has plenty of evidence to be very likely, they latch onto this as a way of thinking they have a small chance of being right so they incorrectly say we can't know so I will believe what I want. What is hypocritical is that most will get up in church and say they know the church is true, or use the word know in some other way in everyday usage.

[_just me]

Ok. Many of the issues about polygamy have been laid out. Seems we are now focused on the quibble of "know" and if the relationships were sexual in nature.

Shall we move on to another Joseph issue?

I think there are plenty more that are disturbing.

We could focus on lying. I think that is pretty important. Actually, it could be the most crucial issue of all. Joseph Smith was a liar. How can we trust him or the god he claims to represent?

[_Themis]

Ok. Many of the issues about polygamy have been laid out. Seems we are now focused on the quibble of "know" and if the relationships were sexual in nature.

It is a problem many members have when looking at the evidence. It's a way they can feel good about ignoring the evidence. The funny thing is that Joseph having sex with his wives should not be anymore a problem then BY having sex with his. It's really the other things going on that are really the problem.

We could focus on lying. I think that is pretty important. Actually, it could be the most crucial issue of all. Joseph Smith was a liar. How can we trust him or the god he claims to represent?

I tend to agree.