Nevo wrote:Hi Uncertain,
This is well said and I largely agree with you. I do think Joseph Smith's practice of polygamy can be reasonably viewed as negative evidence for his claim of divine inspiration and that apologists would do well to focus on other things.
However, for my part I am not willing to concede that Joseph's actions with regard to polygamy were "morally repugnant." I'm not sure that I could convince even myself that his behavior was wholly virtuous, but I cannot regard it as equally devastating to a claim of divine inspiration as, say, "hunting down and torturing innocents to death." One is beyond the pale; the other isn't in my view.
Well I would certainly agree Joseph Smith actions are nowhere near as bad as hunting down and torturing innocents. I was using the extreme case in order to make a point. Whether or not Joseph Smith actions are classified as morally repugnant is a judgment call. I think you defend his actions as well as they can be defended. I understand and sympathize with the idea Joseph Smith viewed himself as between a rock and a hard place. I personally still don't think this makes his actions morally justified. I can understand why someone did something without agreeing that their reasons sufficiently justified their actions. Even if he gave Emma the opportunity to approve of plural marriage before he took his first wife. I don't see why this then justifies marrying women without her knowledge. After all I could go up to my wife and say honey God really wants me to marry other women. If she strongly disagrees I am not magically morally justified in going ahead anyways. Simply arguing God
really did want me to marry the young hottie who lives in my house with or without my wife's permission is of course circular reasoning when it comes to evaluating my claim that a loving moral God speaks to me.
By the way I would find Josephs actions to be far more defensible if his first wife was the middle aged poor widow with eight kids that lived down the street. Marrying the super hot live in housekeeper is not something that screams I am only doing this because God made me. I mean would God care all that much if Joseph did marry and form a "dynastic kinship" with the hypothetical poor widow instead of the young hot housekeeper? I agree for some of the marriages they certainly seemed to be all about forming sealing bonds. I am not sure I can say the same thing about the first one.
Nevo wrote:I accept that God can use people who might have mistaken notions about him and what he requires of them, who might even behave in morally questionable ways at times. But I don't think Joseph's moral failings were significantly worse than my own. So I'm not ready to throw him overboard, Jonah-like, just yet :)
I sympathize with this view. I certainly am not arguing a claimed prophet must be perfect in every way. As mentioned my own loss of faith had little to do with church history. I personally am of the opinion that Joseph's actions are indeed negative evidence regarding his claims but not sufficient in and off themselves to disregard those claims. But I understand and sympathize with those who feel differently it is highly subjective. Just how much bad behavior can we tolerate from claimed prophets before they no longer hold our loyalty? Speaking in general and not specifically about Mormonism. You seem to agree torturing innocents is over the line but marrying women without your wife's knowledge is not. I think a person can legitimately draw the line elsewhere. In other words I don't necessarily blame someone who loses faith after discovering some of the more unsavory aspects of Mormon history. Even if I personally do not do not find it as damaging to faith as others do.
Best,
Uncertain