what can you say:

[_karl61]

To read some of the responses over at MAD:

I was reading over at MAD and saw a thread by Tarski and when I read DCP's response I just shook my head>



QUOTE(Tarski @ Mar 21 2009, 12:24 PM)
Joseph Smith's actions with repsect to women is not an advanced topic.

DCP

"On the contrary.

It's a matter of great historical controversy and obscurity, and, as I've just noted in another relevant thread, it's neither directly germane to the truth-claims of the Restoration nor easily judged without prior assumptions about Joseph Smith's character and other actions. "

[_Runtu]

DCP

"On the contrary.

It's a matter of great historical controversy and obscurity, and, as I've just noted in another relevant thread, it's neither directly germane to the truth-claims of the Restoration nor easily judged without prior assumptions about Joseph Smith's character and other actions. "

Exactly. If you start with "prior assumptions" that he was a prophet, then you can judge his character accurately (i.e., favorably). What I think he's getting at is that anyone learning about Joseph's marital relationships cold, without prior knowledge, or assumptions, is going to conclude the "wrong" things about Joseph.

Which is why Tarski's point is obvious and correct.

[_Some Schmo]

It's a matter of great historical controversy and obscurity, and, as I've just noted in another relevant thread, it's neither directly germane to the truth-claims of the Restoration nor easily judged without prior assumptions about Joseph Smith's character and other actions. "

Translation: "My investment in the truth claims of the church are far more important to me than reality, but that doesn't sound as good (to me) as this BS."