Why are some people so defensive about Joseph Smith and polygamy?

[_Runtu]

Why am I defensive about Joseph Smith and polygamy? Because I believe he was a good man. Because I believe he viewed the practice of plural marriage as a theological imperative.

For me, this is the key: you believe he was a good man, so you find a way to make his practice of polygamy (and the attendant deception) "good" or at least justifiable. But that seems to reflect the need to see Joseph as good; if someone else did what we know Joseph did, I suspect most of us wouldn't feel the need to justify it.

[_dblagent007]

I take from this that unless you put the appropriate apologetic spin on Joseph Smith's polygamy, it comes close to "misrepresentation of the facts" and that offends TBMs. I don't think critics should misrepresent the facts, but I also don't think they should have to qualify everything with long winded explanations of how all the marriages may have been sexless dynastic sealings and how we should view him sympathetically because he was caught between a commandment from God and the negative sentiments of his wife and surrounding community.

I'm sorry, but Joseph Smith's polygamy is completely ridiculous. There have been so many religious charlatans over time that have practiced polygamy (taking cues from the Bible) that it is virtually impossible to believe that somehow he is different. Oh, but Joseph Smith is different the apologists tell us. He was the only one who God really commanded to have sex with lots of other women. Give me a break.

[_zzyzx]

Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.


Nevo wrote: "So it would appear that some amount of deception was involved, but not necessarily outright lying (about sleeping with some of his wives)."

[_bcspace]

I gave the example of Joseph Smith sleeping with young women and lying to his wife about it as one example.

But is it a true example?

This is why I consider you to be an antiMormon. All throughout your writings, you are constantly assuming without evidence that something is amiss. Therefore, you ar intentionally lying about or negatively sensationalizing the Church. An antiMormon.

So, what I'm wondering is why stating facts about Joseph Smith's behavior is somehow an underhanded slam and full of crap (which of course suggests dishonesty). Maybe the objection is that to say such things is to intentionally put Joseph Smith in a bad light (and thus meet bcspace's definition of "anti-Mormon").

It is this consistent theme of yours which puts you into that category. No amount of politeness and subtlety can save you from it.

Rather than to slam Joseph Smith, I used the example of polygamy to illustrate the idea that there are no moral absolutes in Mormonism. Ironically, Joseph Smith himself used polygamy (his proposal to Nancy Rigdon) to illustrate the same principle.

You could certainly find a quotation or two in an official manual that what appears to be wrong according to mortal standards, it is not wrong if God does it or commands it to be done.

[_dblagent007]

Joseph Smith was minding his own business when all of a sudden, God told him "Start polygamy now!" So Joseph, realizing faith and obedience was of utmost importance, agreed to do it though he had no idea why.

Yeah, it was quite convenient and I'm sure pure coincidence that the theological imperative to start practicing polygamy (without Emma's knowledge) came down at the same time he had fallen in love with his teenage live-in maid, Fanny Alger!

[_bcspace]

Why are some people so defensive about Joseph Smith and polygamy?

Why are some people so quick to attack Joseph Smith and plural marriage without any evidence of wrongdoing?

[_Runtu]

But is it a true example?

Yes, it is. See my later post about the Partridge sisters.

This is why I consider you to be an antiMormon. All throughout your writings, you are constantly assuming without evidence that something is amiss. Therefore, you ar intentionally lying about or negatively sensationalizing the Church. An antiMormon.

I'm not assuming something is amiss. In this instance, for example, I'm stating the truth: Joseph married and slept with young women and concealed that from his wife. I think there is something amiss about that, but obviously you don't. Apparently, that makes me a lying, sensationalizing anti-Mormon. Too funny.

It is this consistent theme of yours which puts you into that category. No amount of politeness and subtlety can save you from it.

The consistent theme being what? Assuming something is amiss (without evidence, right)? I admit it: I think what Joseph did was wrong. So what?

You could certainly find a quotation or two in an official manual that what appears to be wrong according to mortal standards, it is not wrong if God does it or commands it to be done.

I certainly could find many such quotations, but I chose the one at hand. What of it? The point is the same: the only moral absolute is obedience to God's will.

[_Runtu]

Why are some people so defensive about Joseph Smith and polygamy?

Why are some people so quick to attack Joseph Smith and plural marriage without any evidence of wrongdoing?

How is it an attack to point out that practicing polygamy and keeping it secret from your wife is an example of Joseph Smith's belief that the only moral absolute is obedience to God's will? That was the reason I brought it up with Droopy, and he called it an underhanded shot at Joseph Smith. i don't get it.

[_Dr. Shades]

All throughout your writings, you are constantly assuming without evidence that something is amiss.

You mean, sort of like how people are constantly assuming, without evidence, that something was amiss when Kevin Garn went hot tubbing with Cheryl Maher?

[_Runtu]

You mean, sort of like how people are constantly assuming, without evidence, that something was amiss when Kevin Garn went hot tubbing with Cheryl Maher?

The sad thing is that I used to defend this kind of stuff, just like bc does. I concluded, based on the evidence, that something was amiss. It's one thing to assume without evidence that something is wrong; it is entirely another thing to defend something for 15 years and then finally admit that there is something wrong, after all.