Runtu wrote:I'll let Tal speak for himself. Let's restate:
The apologists tell us that if we find Joseph's behavior reprehensible, we are guilty of presentism.
Using the apologists' logic, here are some other things which, if found reprehensible, make us guilty of "presentism":
---slavery
---human sacrifice
---Nazi-style eugenics
---public executions
---no voting for women
---open sewers
---the guillotine
My sense is that real "presentism" is meant to prevent anthropologists from obscuring their analysis of non-Western cultures with their own values. (I.e., by writing off indigenous peoples as "savages.") I think that the LDS apologists are like twisting this notion and warping the original definition, sort of like what juliann did in her discussion of "apostates."
Plutarch wrote:I'm waiting for you to cite to philosophers, ethicists, the scriptures, anything.
How about the victim? Here are Helen's words:
[Heber Kimball] left me to reflect upon it for the next twenty-four hours .... I was sceptical -- one minute believed, then doubted. I thought of the love and tenderness that he felt for his only daughter, and I knew that he would not cast her off, and this was the only convincing proof that I had of its being right. I knew that he loved me too well to teach me anything that was not strictly pure, virtuous and exalting in its tendencies; and no one else could have influenced me at that time or brought me to accept of a doctrine so utterly repugnant and so contrary to all our former ideas and traditions.
Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness, pp. 498-99 (spelling as in original; bold mine for emphasis).
And it appears that Jacob in the Book of Mormon shared Helen's repugnance:
Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the words of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
Jacob 2:27-28 (bold mine for emphasis).
As if to make clear that plural marriage was a very defined and limited exception to this general rule (which also supports the general repugnance for it over a very long period of time), Jacob said:
For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
Jacob 2:30 (bold mine for emphasis)
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Plutarch - I can only hope that red-herring digressions such as yours are the best church defense arguments I'll ever have to answer on here. They're enough to make any responder sound like a genius. For example, you criticize others for the J Dub distraction tactic, and yet you yourself have done it here. Why? Was it deliberate, or did you not notice? Supposing it was the latter, let me mention the main point again:
My comments here are not an attempt at constructing an argument for the immorality of Joseph Smith's sexual behaviour. Do you understand that? If you go back and read my first post on this thread, and the original RFM essay which began this discussion (for what it's worth), you will see that this is so. In making the comments you have, you are responding to an "argument" which does not exist here. This makes readers believe you are unable to answer the original argument, which is simply that Joseph Smith's sexual behaviour struck those of his contemporaries who knew of it as disgusting, just as it does most people today, and that therefore, his modern critics are not guilty of "presentism".
And speaking of presentism, your comments in fact make it very believable that you've never heard of this charge, so popular with the FAIR gang. But your ignorance of one topic, does not make some other unrelated topic with which you may be familiar, relevant. If I've neard of the Chicago Bulls, and so come on to a Chicago Bulls thread all upset because previous posters aren't addressing the question of who should quarterback the Chicago Bears, all it does is make me look like an idiot.
Since you appear convinced that Joseph Smith's sexual behaviour was perfectly ethical, I suggest you begin a new thread which invites any of the six billion people on this planet who think that a 37 year old religious pastor, who denounces "polygamy" in public, and who is already married, might be doing something unethical in secretly having sex with three dozen of his parishioners, some as young as fourteen, and then lying about it to nearly everyone concerned, including his own wife. And while you're at it, you can explain why if Smith's behaviour was perfectly moral, why you then believe that homosexual behaviour and present-day statutory rape, even when the participants both consent, are not.
As for Sarah Pratt, one point you seem incapable of fathoming is that quite apart from whether Smith patronized prostitutes, his behaviour was still radically at odds with the mores of his time. That is what this thread's about, Plutarch: presentism, and whether Smith's sexual behaviour was, or was not, contrary to the mores of his time. Is it so much to ask that you let the J Dubs and professional Mormon apologists retain possession of the "digression" tactic, and simply speak to the point at hand here?
I'd like to see a debate about whether his behavior was moral or ethical. But you're right, Tal. This thread is about presentism, Plutarch's derailment notwithstanding.
Tal Bachman wrote:As for Sarah Pratt, one point you seem incapable of fathoming is that quite apart from whether Smith patronized prostitutes, his behaviour was still radically at odds with the mores of his time. That is what this thread's about, Plutarch: presentism, and whether Smith's sexual behaviour was, or was not, contrary to the mores of his time. Is it so much to ask that you let the J Dubs and professional Mormon apologists retain possession of the "digression" tactic, and simply speak to the point at hand here?[/color]
Your obfuscatory writing fails to command the English language.
You held to Sarah Pratt a long time, didn't you, with her charge of prostitutes? I at least credit her that her grandchildren returned to the Church notwitstanding all she could do.
There was no "digression" as I responded directly to your original point.
Your criticism of "Smith's sexual behaviour" focused upon his marrying (1) a 14-year-old (2) in polygamy.
What is wrong with these two items, from the perspective of the 19th Century?
Plutarch wrote:Your criticism of "Smith's sexual behaviour" focused upon his marrying (1) a 14-year-old (2) in polygamy.
What is wrong with these two items, from the perspective of the 19th Century?
Read my quote from Helen above -- do you still believe that the feelings she expresses therein were out of the ordinary for those times? Methinks not. Your argument is absurd ... and you know it.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
What you appear to be arguing now is that polygamy, and 37 year old Christian ministers men secretly "marrying" their 14 year old parishioners, were widely considered acceptable practices in 1843 America.
Can you possibly be serious? How old are you?
If I may, I guess I'd like to also suggest for your consideration the possibility that your inability to understand, or meet, an argument made in English, does not mean that that argument is written "in obfuscatory language". It may simply mean that, well, you don't understand it (and in fact, you prove as much by stating that you responded to my original point, which of course you did not). But, to give you the benefit of the doubt for a moment, what is it that you think is obfuscatory about my response? All I did was inform you of what this thread's about; it was someone else who seemed to wish to obscure that fact...
Come on, bro. Give me something good to respond to.
Tal Bachman wrote:As for Sarah Pratt, one point you seem incapable of fathoming is that quite apart from whether Smith patronized prostitutes, his behaviour was still radically at odds with the mores of his time. That is what this thread's about, Plutarch: presentism, and whether Smith's sexual behaviour was, or was not, contrary to the mores of his time. Is it so much to ask that you let the J Dubs and professional Mormon apologists retain possession of the "digression" tactic, and simply speak to the point at hand here?[/color]
Your obfuscatory writing fails to command the English language.
Oh, c'mon, P. You know his writing isn't obfuscatory, but you're desperately close to obfuscatory writing yourself. His response was plainly stated. You're the one using smoke and mirrors. Answer the real question of the OP instead of trying to disrupt the discussion with your red herrings. We all know you can answer quite coherantly when you feel like it.
You held to Sarah Pratt a long time, didn't you, with her charge of prostitutes? I at least credit her that her grandchildren returned to the Church notwitstanding all she could do.
Well, you can't blame Sarah for how stupid her grandchildren are. We all make mistakes, and her grandchildren will have to pay for theirs the same as Sarah will have to pay for hers.
There was no "digression" as I responded directly to your original point.
Where?
Your criticism of "Smith's sexual behaviour" focused upon his marrying (1) a 14-year-old (2) in polygamy.
Actually, he wasn't specifically criticizing Joseph. He was criticizing the apologists who claim presentism as an apologetic excuse when presentism of the problem doesn't exist. It's not the people now who are disgusted with Joseph; it was the people around Joseph who were disgusted enough with his behavior to tar and feather him, run him out of town, and eventually kill him.
What is wrong with these two items, from the perspective of the 19th Century?
Plutarch
You know as well as anyone. Your facade is slipping.
Whether or not evoking the fallacy of presentism is warranted in the case of Joseph Smith is certainly a question worth considering. However, I don't believe Bachman's arguments are even relevant, for they fail to overlay the appropriate context on the issue.
An accurate understanding of Mormon claims would lead one to conclude that it is not 19th century mores that must be considered, but rather those of ancient Israel. Was the taking of multiple wives, and even marrying women barely beyond puberty considered acceptable in the time of the Israelite patriarchs, and throughout the ancient Near East? It was indeed. And this is the paradigm of Joseph Smith's "restoration," is it not? In any event, it is the paradigm within which Smith and his followers rationalized their own acceptance of the "principle."
Runtu wrote:I'd like to see a debate about whether his behavior was moral or ethical. But you're right, Tal. This thread is about presentism, Plutarch's derailment notwithstanding.
Now would be a good time to start a thread about it. No doubt the debate will be quite interesting.