tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post114269536652852517..comments2023-11-02T07:25:45.884-05:00Comments on Mormanity - a blog for those interested in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: An Informed Perspective on PolygamyJeff Lindsayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776493593387402607noreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-12691656549292937292008-02-02T12:47:00.000-06:002008-02-02T12:47:00.000-06:00Everyone has the right to live in peace and securi...Everyone has the right to live in peace and security, they have the right to believe as they see fit, in whatever context they view God. Throughout time horrible things have been done in the name of religion and the righteous. Still today in the middle east. Every group claims the "One true faith" every group makes that claim that their road is the only one to salvation, be it from stone tablets left by the hand of God on a mountainside, or gold disks hidden under a rock the secret given to but a single man. There are those who believe Jesus never walked the earth, and even still those who believe you must kill the innocent to gain Gods favor in heaven, and they do so with great relish.<BR/>My beliefs may not be the beliefs of others, so be it. I am but a man as are all men and women. We cannot begin to explain the miracles of God. We know not how God functions or what his plan for us is. The one thing we can all do now, in this time, while we are here. Is embrace the human condition, to accept and rejoice in our differences and still be able to come together at the table of brotherhood. Love thy neighbor as it is said. There can always be found reasons to hate and fear, you need not look far to find them. But do you realy wish to fill your heart so full of darkness that you no longer can see the light? In our society we focus far too much on times long past. We fail to look to the now and the future. We cannot change our pasts my brothers and sisters. We can only hope that we have learned from it and have grown enough to continue to walk in the light of our futures. <BR/> <BR/> Rev. Marc J PentlandRevPentlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00010941789630938099noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1147098804707641992006-05-08T09:33:00.000-05:002006-05-08T09:33:00.000-05:00What gets my goat is that Mormons cannot question ...What gets my goat is that Mormons cannot question anything. It doesn't matter what FACTS you put in front of them about the Bible's accuracy, etc. It doesn't matter. They cannot "examine all things" as the Bible says. That is the only way their religion survives.<BR/><BR/>What I like about being a Christian is that the Bible can be backed up historically. I can question it all I want!! Secular historians have tried to disprove the Bible and have turned into Christians in the process. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, I just wish Mormons would do research of their own. Instead of labelling things as anti-mormon, why don't you prove them wrong? Why don't you prove the Bible wrong? It's an historical document. Why don't you try? Don't look at pro-mormon literature for an answer. Find your own answer. <BR/><BR/>I know I'm just wasting my fingers typing this. Oh well...<BR/><BR/>How do Mormons ever become PhDs?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1144018324670384882006-04-02T17:52:00.000-05:002006-04-02T17:52:00.000-05:00Surely, now, RFP, even you can grasp the differenc...Surely, now, RFP, even you can grasp the difference between, on the one hand, giving arguments as to why you believe Mormons ought to have a reputation for dishonesty, and on the other hand, presenting actual evidence that they do have such a reputation.<BR/><BR/>Still waiting for the latter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143964630439942812006-04-02T01:57:00.000-06:002006-04-02T01:57:00.000-06:00Anon, you simply do not know what you are talking ...Anon, you simply do not know what you are talking about, and you still aren't backing up any of your broad accusations with evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143958258322308562006-04-02T00:10:00.000-06:002006-04-02T00:10:00.000-06:00Curiously, SLewis seems to have interpreted “hones...Curiously, SLewis seems to have interpreted “honesty” in economic terms. Personally, I have no idea whether a Mormon is more likely to pick my pocket than a Southern Baptist or a Zoroastrian is. I thought it was rather obvious that I was talking about intellectual honesty. Like it or not—and I wouldn’t expect any Mormon to like it—Mormonism has a reputation for intellectual dishonesty. (This is why I encourage people to cite objective sources rather than FARMS and the like.) Jeff seems aware of this problem himself (see <A HREF="http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2005/08/liars-liars-everywhere-story-of-my-lie.html" REL="nofollow">HERE</A>), without the need for an opinion poll (which I think is what SLewis is asking for), and it’s worth reading the comments on both sides. SLewis wonders whether it is he or I who have been talking to the wrong people. I’m not sure there are any “right” or “wrong” people; I merely am pointing out that this reputation exists, even if it's among those he would categorise as "the wrong sort of people". Furthermore, I wonder if the problem really goes back to (1) J Smith’s personal dishonesty (for even if we accept the BoM as divine revelation, we have to admit he remained a dishonest person) and (2) Mormons have in the main having found it very difficult to face up honestly to his many flaws.<BR/><BR/>Remember this is not the only negative aspect of Mormonsim that I have pointed out. There is also the (related) issue of the lack of a credible intellectual tradition, and the perhaps more important one of a lack of focus on works of mercy. Again, my hypothesis is that all these aspects may be traceable to deficiencies in the founders of Mormonism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143922655204679242006-04-01T14:17:00.000-06:002006-04-01T14:17:00.000-06:00Ya know, I have to agree with Mike here. Anon's la...Ya know, I have to agree with Mike here. Anon's last post talks a lot about the Mormon "reputation" for dishonesty, but s/he didn't give a shred of evidence that all (or most, or even many) non-Mormons believe that Mormons are dishonest.<BR/><BR/>Anon tells us to "talk to people." But what if people *I* talk to say that most Mormons they know are honest? What if *I* know employers who like hiring Mormons because they don't steal from them? What if *I* know landlords who like to rent to Mormons because they pay on time and don't trash the apartments?<BR/><BR/>I guess I'm just not talking to the right people.<BR/><BR/>Or maybe Anon is only talking to the wrong people.<BR/><BR/>Either way, Anon has given us his/her opinion again, but not a bit of evidence that s/he's right.<BR/><BR/>Until s/he does, I think it's best to assume that s/he's full of crap.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143838382147342872006-03-31T14:53:00.000-06:002006-03-31T14:53:00.000-06:00I’ve been criticised from time to time to ‘ignorin...I’ve been criticised from time to time to ‘ignoring’ things people say, but the truth is, it’s not intentional. I’m a very busy person and can’t really afford to spend much time here. So please don’t be offended if it seems I haven’t paid attention to some of you; I just don’t have the time to answer everyone, so I try to focus on those who perhaps need it most. <BR/><BR/>Now it is true that ltbugaf asked me some time ago on what basis I say that Mormons don’t have a generally good reputation. (I think it was him, anyway.) It’s a fair question, and I don’t like to ignore him, but I’ve been busy with some of his (and my, I hope) other friends. I think he asked if there was some sort of survey on the question. That’s an interesting thought. I’ve never heard of any survey that measured the comparative ‘popularity’ of religious groups. Perhaps there is one, somewhere, but the usual criticism of course is ‘it’s all how you ask the questions.’ If he knows of one, I’d be interested in hearing about it. But if he wants to know what non-Mormons think of Mormons, then the best way to do that is to ask them (without, of course, identifying his own affiliation—people are much less likely to be candid if he does that). Talk to people. <BR/><BR/>The first thing you will hear about is the honesty issue. The only Mormons most people ever meet are the self-styled “missionaries” who roam in pairs from door to door. Do you know what it’s like to try and pin people like that down about specifics of Mormon doctrine? Such squirming and dissimulation you’ll never see in your life. Where else do people hear about Mormons? Well, occasionally someone like Hinkley breaks into the media for a moment or two—and guess what, he’s evasive about Mormon doctrine. Or maybe it’s the LA Times writing about official Mormon membership figures being inflated, or maybe it’s a new book come out on the Hoffman forgery…all this is where reputations come from. Now, you may think that unfair—you may have never told a lie in your life, nor your grandma—and perhaps it is unfair. But it is the reputation that’s there. Mr P notwithstanding, I think most people can tell the difference between ‘all Mormons lie’ and ‘Mormonism has a reputation for dishonesty.’<BR/><BR/>And there’s more behind it. This is a thread about polygamy. We all know here that Joseph Smith lied about polygamy. We know the Mormon church leaders lied about polygamy. I think everyone here would admit that, though many try to find excuses for it. And that attempt—to make excuses for dishonesty—feeds into the reputation. <BR/><BR/>This is an important issue, because you don’t hear about other religions trying to hide their doctrines. When necessary, they went to the stake for their beliefs (without a gun in hand)—Cranmer’s anniversary just passed recently, for instance. I’ve stated before that I think the trouble Mormons have with moral discernment goes right back to Smith. If you want to improve the reputation Mormons have on truthfulness, start by admitting the fact of Smith’s low moral character. Certainly God could pick whatever kind of prophet she wanted to, even a creep, right? So why try to make a saint out of someone who so clearly wasn’t? If you’d come out and say, okay, we believe God made use of Smith to reveal the BoM, but he took advantage of his chosen status by issuing a lot of goofy, self-serving and sometimes evil edicts and passing them off as God’s wishes, and there’s no hiding he was a bad man right up to the end—if you did that, instead of trying to hide his manifold faults, you might find people trust you more. <BR/><BR/>I’ve focused on honesty because that’s what people seem to take most umbrage at. No one (yet) has complained about the impoverished intellectual tradition or the lack of moral exemplars, but if I were you, I’d find that pretty troubling too.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143832190106728552006-03-31T13:09:00.000-06:002006-03-31T13:09:00.000-06:00Pat: "Mike, am I understanding correctly that you ...Pat: <I>"Mike, am I understanding correctly that you believe that Joseph had sex with some of his wives, including some of his teenage wives, but not his fourteen-year old wives?<BR/><BR/>"If yes, do you think Joseph had some moral code that allowed intercourse with plural-wife teenagers, but not fourteen-year-old teenagers?"</I><BR/><BR/>What I am saying is that Joseph's reasons for entering into plural marriage don't appear to be based purely (or even mostly) on sexuality. The reasons he gave those whom he took into confidence indicate that he saw plural marriage as having dynastic benefits — that is, people sealed to him would share salvation with him. This explains many of the more usual aspects of his marriages, such as marrying who were already married to other men, with the first husband's permission (and even participation in the sealing ceremony).<BR/><BR/>Did he have a sexual relationship with <I>all</I> of his wives? Unknown, but doubtful, for reasons given above.<BR/><BR/>Did he have a sexual relationship with <I>some</I> of his wives? Probably. We have statements from a few of them during the anti-polygamy conflicts of the late 19th century indicating that they had children by him. So far, all genetic tests of these claimed children have turned up negative, but there are more tests to do.<BR/><BR/>The bottom line is that we just don't know how extensive his sexual relationships were. But to accuse Joseph Smith of pedophilia is going beyond the evidence.<BR/><BR/><BR/>(And, BTW, I trust that intelligent readers of this blog can immediately see that "Mormons do not have a reputation for being overly truthful" is just a more turgid way of saying "all Mormons lie.")Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04120374705032268459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143823860934363422006-03-31T10:51:00.000-06:002006-03-31T10:51:00.000-06:00"Mr Perkins, who now wants us to call him Mr Parke..."Mr Perkins, who now wants us to call him Mr Parker..."<BR/><BR/>Actually, that would be Mr. Parker, who has never represented himself by any other name. Unlike RFP, who even now persists in the absurd and immature charade of listing itself as "anonymous," apparently in the false hope that we won't know who's commenting (or perhaps just in a childish desire to tweak those who point out RFP's identity).<BR/><BR/>"Nor have I said that “all Mormons lie”, as he alleges. I have said that Mormons do not have a reputation for being overly truthful..."<BR/><BR/>Yes, RFP, you've asserted and reasserted and reasserted that allegation. You've repeated yourself, but you STILL haven't offered a shred of evidence that Mormons have the unsavory reputation you say they have.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143781839066471832006-03-30T23:10:00.000-06:002006-03-30T23:10:00.000-06:00“I suggest you read up on the fallacy of ad homine...“I suggest you read up on the fallacy of ad hominem.”<BR/>Mr Perkins, who now wants us to call him Mr Parker, tells us that for “the vast majority of nineteenth century Americans, marriage and sexuality went hand in hand. ” I’m afraid this is a rather naïve view. Births out of wedlock were common, especially in the lower classes. Furthermore, the reason there was a common law tradition of an age of sexual consent was precisely to protect children from what we would today call sexual exploitation. Oddly, the link he provided clearly states that “AoC Laws regulating sexual acts” should “not be confused with the age of majority or age of criminal responsibility, and in some jurisdictions, the marriageable age.” I think he has assumed that though it was a capital offense to engage in sexual relations with a girl below a certain age, once she reached that age she could legally marry. That was not the case, as I suspect even he must realise.<BR/><BR/>He also accuses me of “ad hominem” attacks. On the contrary, the only person whose character I have personally assailed has been Joseph Smith (who is the topic of this conversation, since it was he insituted polygamy among the Mormons). As he is dead, I don’t think he will be offended (<I>nil bonum de mortuis</I> has always been my motto). Nor have I said that “all Mormons lie”, as he alleges. I have said that Mormons do not have a reputation for being overly truthful, which, though perhaps difficult for a Mormon to hear, is another thing entirely. There are reasons for this reputation, as anyone who has ever been visited by Mormon “missionaries” and heard them dissimulate and evade questions when pressed on points of doctrine, or has followed the Hoffman forgery story, or has wondered about the inflated official membership statistics, will tell you. Now, you may dispute any one of those points, but you must admit that the result of them is a particular <I>reputation</I>, and you can hardly blame someone if she asks for objective sources, such as a non-Mormon biographer. Nor did I suggest he or anyone else here is lying, but I do suggest that FARMS and the like may not be the most reliable sources, for the reasons I have mentioned. <BR/><BR/>I think what Mr Parker, or whatever he wants to be called now, finds frustrating is that he feels that when he offers ‘evidence’, there are people who do not find it convincing. That is not an ad hominem attack, but it does perhaps say something about the different ways people approach data and process information. I have noticed a particular that Mormons on apologetics boards and on blogs do this in a rather particular way which differs significantly from the way I am used to. (I can’t speak for any in real life, as there are none here.) As I have said before, I find this extremely interesting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143775652887061952006-03-30T21:27:00.000-06:002006-03-30T21:27:00.000-06:00Mike Parker says:"I'm not arguing that Joseph did ...Mike Parker says:<BR/><BR/>"I'm not arguing that Joseph did not have a sexual relationship with at least some of his wives. The testimonies you (Sarah) reproduced are clear on that.<BR/><BR/>I am arguing that there is no evidence or testimony that he slept with his two 14-year-old wives."<BR/><BR/>Mike, am I understanding correctly that you believe that Joseph had sex with some of his wives, including some of his teenage wives, but not his fourteen-year old wives? <BR/><BR/>If yes, do you think Joseph had some moral code that allowed intercourse with plural-wife teenagers, but not fourteen-year-old teenagers?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143772113159127862006-03-30T20:28:00.000-06:002006-03-30T20:28:00.000-06:00FWIW, my uncle married his wife the day after her ...FWIW, my uncle married his wife the day after her 14th birthday because the justice of the peace would not marry them any sooner, although she was already pregnant. Not much else to do in small farming towns, I guess.<BR/><BR/>I know it's hard for some people to imagine a 14-year-old getting married, but I think it's equally hard to imagine a 15-year-old working as a successful schoolteacher, too. A lot of things are hard to understand when they aren't contemporary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143757160063259092006-03-30T16:19:00.000-06:002006-03-30T16:19:00.000-06:00Anonymous,On further reflection, I'd decided to en...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>On further reflection, I'd decided to end this conversation. <A HREF="http://mormanity.blogspot.com/2006/03/josephs-excessive-modesty.html#c114375699040446318" REL="nofollow">Please see my comments over here.</A><BR/><BR/>I should know better than to get suckered into arguing with individuals such as yourself.<BR/><BR/>Good day.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04120374705032268459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143756117384414812006-03-30T16:01:00.000-06:002006-03-30T16:01:00.000-06:00Anonymous:Who is the "Mr. Perkins" you are address...Anonymous:<BR/><BR/>Who is the "Mr. Perkins" you are addressing? Are you confused, or is that an elementary school-level snark?<BR/><BR/>Again, you repeat your contention that Mormons lie and therefore people shouldn't trust them. I suggest you read up on the fallacy of <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem" REL="nofollow"><I>ad hominem</I></A>. The fallacy in this case works like this:<BR/><BR/><I>Mike:</I> "I believe that Joseph Smith was not a child molesting pervert."<BR/><I>Anonymous:</I> "Of course you would say that, you're a Mormon, and all Mormons lie."<BR/><I>Mike:</I> "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"<BR/><I>Anonymous:</I> "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a Mormon, so you have to say that Joseph was a wonderful person. Further, because all Mormons lie, I can't believe what you say."<BR/><BR/>Lay off the insults and sweeping generalizations. Deal with the evidence.<BR/><BR/>How many non-Mormon biographies of Joseph Smith have been written by people who didn't have an axe to grind? If you can point one other than Remini, I'd appreciate it.<BR/><BR/>Also, I'd like to know what in Remini's biography would lead you to claim, <I>"I don't think [Remini would] have let his daughter, or his wife, near [Joseph Smith]."</I><BR/><BR/><I>"The age of consent for sexual acts generally differs from ages of consent for entering into contractual arrangements (such as marriage)."</I> Please back this up with documentation. Since sexual acts outside of marriage were considered sinful by the vast majority of nineteenth century Americans, marriage and sexuality went hand in hand. The minimum age was commonly ten to thirteen in the mid-nineteenth century, and gradually drifted upward after that. (<A HREF="http://www.thewordbook.com/age_of_consent" REL="nofollow">Here's another reference</A>, since my first one was so unpersuasive.)<BR/><BR/><I>"Simply because JS's behaviour was still legal at the time did not mean his contemporaries didn't find it disgusting."</I> Again, evidence, evidence, evidence. Give me a reference to someone involved in Nauvoo polygamy who objected to the age of (a few!) of his wives. The wives themselves didn't have a problem with this, and neither did their families. Even the publishers of the <I>Nauvoo Expositor</I>, who were so horrified at Joseph's plural marriages, didn't bring up age as an issue.<BR/><BR/>You like to make big, grandiose claims, but I have yet to see you put any evidence on the table. I'm sick of this stupid game — put up or shut up.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04120374705032268459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143750475983609472006-03-30T14:27:00.000-06:002006-03-30T14:27:00.000-06:00Oops...forgot cowardice (although that's been ampl...Oops...forgot cowardice (although that's been amply commented on and demonstrated on other threads).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143750419074661462006-03-30T14:26:00.000-06:002006-03-30T14:26:00.000-06:00But RFP, since you yourself have a strong reputati...But RFP, since you yourself have a strong reputation for mendacity, obfuscation, avoidance of issues, unsupported assertions, egomania, and narcissism, what puts you in a position to comment on the flaws of Joseph Smith or any other of your moral superiors?<BR/><BR/>And what evidence do you have to support your false assertions about the general reputations of Mormons? What study of public opinion shows this universal disdain for all things Mormon that you so gleefully and so frequently refer to?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143748698365614362006-03-30T13:58:00.000-06:002006-03-30T13:58:00.000-06:00It may be hard for Mr Perkins to hear this, but Mo...It may be hard for Mr Perkins to hear this, but Mormons do <I>not</I> have a reputation for truthfulness. I’m afraid that rather colours the way non-Mormons view their apologetics, including FARMS and the like. I therefore suggest he refer me to a single non-Mormon biographer of JS who found no credible evidence for some pretty serious flaws in the man’s moral character. There probably is one, somewhere, though I don’t know of one myself and such an one would be considerably outnumbered. Remini is the most sympathetic non-Mormon biographer I can think of, and I don’t think he’d have let his daughter, or his wife, near the man.<BR/><BR/>The age of consent for sexual acts generally differs from ages of consent for entering into contractual arrangements (such as marriage). Mr Perkins may not realise it, but the link he provided (Georgetown) referred to the former, not the latter. He tried to present the age of (sexual) consent (infringement of which is considered statutory rape) as evidence that J Smith’s marriage of a 14 –year old was normal for his day. It wasn't. The point, which I suspect most readers understood, is simply because JS’s behaviour was still legal at the time did not mean his contemporaries didn’t find it disgusting. Within a generation the law had caught up with public sentiment, and what Smith had done was made illegal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143740190538777512006-03-30T11:36:00.000-06:002006-03-30T11:36:00.000-06:00I'll tell you what I am tired of, ltbugaf: "Anonym...I'll tell you what I <I>am</I> tired of, ltbugaf: "Anonymous"'s continuing refusal to engage the evidence and resort to <I>ad hominem</I>.<BR/><BR/>I provided (just one) reference on Joseph Smith's New York reputation. Instead of bothering to tell me what was wrong with Richard Anderson's conclusions, Anonymous simply dismisses "Mormon apologetics" and informs us the "Mormons do not have a reputation for truthfulness."<BR/><BR/>Instead of dealing with the age of consent evidence (from a non-Mormon source, by the way), Anonymous dodges with a bizarre appeal to "statutory rape," which would not apply if two people were married. And s/he continues to avoid the issue that I have pressed all along that <I>there is not a shred of evidence</I> that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with Helen Mar Kimball. Joseph didn't claim it. Helen didn't claim it. Helen's family didn't claim it. There was no child from the marriage. Every statement made by all the parties involved indicates Joseph was after salvation, not sex. Anonymous' response? Ignore, dodge, obfuscate.<BR/><BR/>Then Anonymous criticizes Mormons for not having a great moral historical figure, and lacking a "moral vision." What this has to do with Joseph Smith's plural marriages and whether he married Helen Mar so he could get his rocks off is entirely unclear to me.<BR/><BR/>Finally Anonymous deigns to tell us what all non-Mormons thinks about us — that we're depraved idiots who don't and cannot know a thing about real history, real morality, and real vision.<BR/><BR/>Oh, Anonymous — what would we be without your clear vision to guide us benighted souls? If only we knew your real name so we could follow you to true moral greatness.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04120374705032268459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143723967648119712006-03-30T07:06:00.000-06:002006-03-30T07:06:00.000-06:00And is anyone else as tired as I am of self-import...And is anyone else as tired as I am of self-important lectures on morality from a person who dedicates his/her existence to the denigration of others?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143721913756576192006-03-30T06:31:00.000-06:002006-03-30T06:31:00.000-06:00Is anyone else as tired as I am of Radicalfeminist...Is anyone else as tired as I am of Radicalfeministpoet's laughably inaccurate and unbacked characterizations of what "everyone else" thinks about Mormons?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143715383415568242006-03-30T04:43:00.000-06:002006-03-30T04:43:00.000-06:00Mike Parker responds to my description of JS’s rep...Mike Parker responds to my description of JS’s reputation as “a radical oversimplification and distortion of Joseph Smith's early years,” and would like us to believe that “all the recent research (since 1970 or so) shows that Joseph's activities in the Palmyra area were unremarkable for the time.” As evidence, he cites a FARMS webpage. I don’t know how to put his any more kindly, but Mormon apologetics do not constitute “all the recent research.” To put it baldly, Mormons do not have a reputation for truthfulness (ie, ‘milk before meat’)—a characteristic that I hypothesise relates to the character of JS himself. What non-Mormon authority has ever given JS’s character a clean bill of health. Even relatively sympathetic biographers, like Rupert Remini, who admit a fondness for the rogue, are open about his character flaws.<BR/><BR/>Mr Parker goes on to say, “And as far as the "standards of the day" go, you're simply wrong: The age of consent under English common law was ten. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten.”<BR/><BR/>Mr Parker seems to be confusing the age of consent vis a vis statutory rape with the “standards of the day”. Having sexual relations with someone below this age was a capital offence—the guilty party could be executed. It does not follow that engaging in such relations with someone marginally above this age was considered socially acceptable, especially when all evidence indicates it was not—starting with the 19th century reform movement Mr P alludes to, which raised the age in the UK and in US states.<BR/><BR/>Mr Parker continues, “Mormon history is full of people who were less than perfect…What this fact has to do with the propriety of Joseph's polygamous marriages is unclear to me. …We can address your accusation that Mormons are evil in another thread.”<BR/><BR/>I doubt that most Mormons are evil. I think any religion has its share of bad apples. The interesting thing about Mormonism is that it doesn’t seem to have any especially good ones. There is no no Mormon Hillel, Mormon Francis of Assissi, no Mormon Mother Theresa, no Mormon Wilberforce, no Mormon Mahatma Gandhi, no Mormon Dalai Lama—you get the point. (There is obviously an attempt to manufacture a saint out of Joseph Smith, but his biography is just to well known for the odour of sanctity to cling to him.)<BR/><BR/>Mike wonders how this lack of moral exemplars among Mormons relates to JS’s sexual pecadilloes (kind version) or depravities (candid version). My hypothesis—and I’m prepared to be convinced to the contrary—is that the entire flawed character of Smith (he was dishonest, after all, as well as promiscuous) has resulted in a primitive moral sense among Mormons. I think that’s why they’re so ready to be dishonest about their doctrines when they proselytise, for instance. I think it’s why they can’t distinguish between objective scholarship and FARMS/FAIRLDS-style apologetics. And I think it’s why they’ve failed to produce a moral vision that anyone else finds admirable. This is not saying that individual Mormons can't be very good people. Perhaps many are.<BR/><BR/>I realise that this viewpoint may sound foreign even shocking, to Mormons themselves, who, from what I read here, are very much convinced that their leaders are moral leaders. I don’t think that view is shared by anyone outside of Mormonism, except by politicians, of course. Do you suppose Mormons really understand what other people think of them, and why?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143608233154747712006-03-28T22:57:00.000-06:002006-03-28T22:57:00.000-06:00Sarah quoth:I don't know how Gregory Smith in good...Sarah quoth:<BR/><BR/><I>I don't know how Gregory Smith in good conscience invokes Gandhi's movement to liberate a billion Hindus and Muslims as a parallel to the propagation of child polygamy and lying about its practice.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't believer I claimed it was a parallel. <BR/><BR/>The 1960s gave "civil disobedience" a bad name in America, especially among politically conservative folks like most LDS. The LDS are also taught consistently to be law-abiding people, to tell the truth, etc.<BR/><BR/>I have even, on occasion, heard a member say that if a criminal broke into their house and demanded to know where their children were, that they would tell them because "honesty is the best policy."<BR/><BR/>Therefore, to understand the decisions made by Joseph and the Church in their context, one must appreciate the moral/ethical issues involved with civil disobedience. If you know two better modern theorists on the subject than Henry David Thoreau, and Gandhi, you are welcome to use them instead. Personally, I felt it would be dishonest to try to discuss the subject without including what they thought.<BR/><BR/>The first question to answer is, "Are there any conditions under which being less than forthright and/or breaking secular law is justified by a believer?" <BR/><BR/>Gandhi is a potent argument that the answer is "Yes." Once that is established, then the second (and more crucial question) can be answered: was plural marriage also such a case?<BR/><BR/>Many LDS have not, however, even really confronted the first question in a serious way--or, they have decided the answer is "No." <BR/><BR/><I>I also don't know why he barely mentions Emma, other than to say that she was "no fan" of polygamy. Indeed.</I><BR/><BR/>Um, because Emma's opposition to plural marriage was well-known. She went so far as to insist that Joseph never taught it--his children believed this to their dying day. Ironically, much of what we know of the period came because of Emma's lies led late 19th century and early 20th century LDS to amass evidence proving that Joseph DID teach the practice.<BR/><BR/>If you want more on Emma, there are lots of quotes, but I suspect that you won't like them because they show that the issue is more complicated than your outrage seems to want to admit:<BR/><BR/><B>...from moments of passionate denunciation [Emma] would subside into tearful repentance and acknowledge that her violent opposition to that principle was instigated by the power of darkness; that Satan was doing his utmost to destroy her, etc. And solemnly came the Prophet’s inspired warning ‘Yes, and he will accomplish your overthrow, if you do not heed my counsel.’</B> - Allen J. Stout, “Allen J. Stout’s Testimony,” Historical Record 6 (May 1887): 230–31; cited in Wendy C. Top, “’A Deep Sorrow in Her Heart’ – Emma Hale Smith,”Heroines of the Restoration, edited by Barbara B. Smith, Blythe Darlyn Thatcher (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 28.<BR/><BR/>Or<BR/><BR/><B>Zina Huntington remembered a conversation between Elizabeth [Davis] and Emma [Smith] in which Elizabeth asked the prophet’s wife if she felt that Joseph was a prophet. Yes, Emma answered, but I wish to God I did not know it.</B> - Todd M. Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 261.<BR/><BR/>Or<BR/><BR/><B>Maria Jane Johnston, who lived with Emma as a servant girl, recalled the Prophet’s wife looking very downcast one day and telling her that the principle of plural marriage was right and came from Heavenly Father. “What I said I have got [to] repent of,” lamented Emma. “The principle is right but I am jealous hearted. Now never tell anybody that you heard me find fault with that[principle[;] we have got to humble ourselves and repent of it.”</B> - Wendy C. Top, “’A Deep Sorrow in Her Heart’ – Emma Hale Smith,”Heroines of the Restoration, edited by Barbara B. Smith, Blythe Darlyn Thatcher (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 28; citing Emma Smith to Maria Jane Johnston, as quoted in Newell and Avery, Mormon Enigma, 161.<BR/><BR/>I tend to agree with Richard Anderson (who is a scholar, even if I don't merit the title):<BR/><BR/><B>Yet the "poor Emma" theme is overworked, not only in sentimental semi-fiction, but even in the long biography of her, Mormon Enigma, wherein Emma is too often ennobled at the expense of Joseph. After all, the great question is why she endured 17 years of constant adjustment and danger at the Prophet's side. The answer is that she obviously shared his spiritual commitments in order to share his persecutions.</B> - Richard Lloyd Anderson, “The Religious Dimensions of Emma's Letters to Joseph,” in Joseph Smith, The Prophet, The Man, edited by Susan Easton Black and Charles D. Tate, Jr. (Provo: Religious Studies Center, 1993), 117.<BR/><BR/><I>Nice that Gregory Smith gets to the heart of the matter...<BR/><BR/>You can make your arguments about historical context, but it's articles like Smith's that are no longer persuasive to those of us who weigh the totality of the evidence, the lies, and the deception and see the practice, and what it tells us about those who apologize for it, for what it is - self-serving, twisted, and NOT of God.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm sorry you didn't find it useful. Of course, it would be more helpful if you actually critiqued the <I>arguments</I> instead of ad hominem attacks on how I'm "self-serving" (though how this serves ME, who doesn't practice plural marriage and doesn't want to is a little opaque). But, so far you've given no evidence that you have read or understood my arguments, even if you don't agree with them.<BR/><BR/><I>But I must be mistaken, for Gregory Smith puts me in my place:<BR/><BR/>"...but it is laughable to argue that he (Smith)and his associates were insincere or that they were practicing their religion only for power and to satisfy carnal desires...."<BR/><BR/>Now that's a scholarly article. </I><BR/><BR/>It wouldn't be "scholarly" at all if I just made the claim with no justification. However, I would respectfully submit that there's a fair amount of citation and argument buried in there between my self-serving, godless propaganda. :-)<BR/><BR/>I stand by my claim that it is "laughable" to reduce the issues as you seem to be trying to--Toffler called that "supersimplification," and it always leads to misunderstanding. <BR/><BR/>If you disagree, it would be nice to see you engage the evidence that led me to that conclusion.<BR/><BR/>You could always take a look at Lawrence Foster, for example, someone who is neither LDS, nor a believer in Joseph Smith, but who yet believes that the explanations behind plural marriage cannot be reduced to mere carnal desires. <BR/><BR/>You'd think that having written such a long article with all the references would provide a ton of fodder for the critics. I'm cool with that. But, strange to say, none of the critics here seem to be addressing any of my arguments or data.<BR/><BR/>Almost makes me think I might be onto something... :-><BR/><BR/>Kind regards,<BR/><BR/>Greg SmithAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143602348221485302006-03-28T21:19:00.000-06:002006-03-28T21:19:00.000-06:00I'm also wondering if RFP (a.k.a. "anonymous" at 1...I'm also wondering if RFP (a.k.a. "anonymous" at 12:11) is ever going to bother addressing its comments to the actual topic of the thread--the article that Jeff discusses in his original post. Doing so might require actual reading of the article, so I'm doubtful...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143584853789737912006-03-28T16:27:00.000-06:002006-03-28T16:27:00.000-06:00Anonymous,This is getting tiresome. You either hav...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>This is getting tiresome. You either haven't read this entire thread or you're ignoring what's already been discussed.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"Some fellow with a (deservedly) bad reputation starts a religion...."</I><BR/><BR/>This is a radical oversimplification and distortion of Joseph Smith's early years. All the recent research (since 1970 or so) shows that Joseph's activities in the Palmyra area were unremarkable for the time. The "bad reputation" you claim comes almost exclusively from the Hurlbut affidavits, which have been shown to be unreliable hearsay (<A HREF="http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=56" REL="nofollow">reference</A>).<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"...and announces that God wants him to marry multiple wives..."</I><BR/><BR/>This claim comes right after "starts a religion," ignoring the considerable period between the establishment of the church (1830) and Joseph's earliest purported plural marriage (1833), as well as his second (1838) and third (1841). If Joseph was the sexual maniac that you believe him to be, he certainly waited a long time before and between his early polygamous relationships.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"...(including women who are already married, and girls too young to marry by the standards of the day)."</I><BR/><BR/>This has been asked and answered previously on this thread. You have not replied to anything I've had to say about what Joseph's own plural wives said about the reasons they married him, and the dynastic view that Joseph likely had in these relationships.<BR/><BR/>And as far as the "standards of the day" go, you're simply wrong:<BR/><BR/>The age of consent under English common law was ten. United States law did not raise the age of consent until the late nineteenth century. In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to seven (<A HREF="http://www.law.georgetown.edu/glh/mctigue.htm" REL="nofollow">reference</A>).<BR/><BR/>It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between him and his marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth cenutry members by twenty-first century social standards. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"How much reasoned analysis does it take to see through him?"</I><BR/><BR/>More than you're employing. Much more.<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>"I'm not sure which accusation Mike Parker thinks he's responded to, but my most recent has been that the 'Saints' are curiously devoid of saints. I'd be interested in hearing his response to that."</I><BR/><BR/>That Mormon history is full of people who were less than perfect — and some who were downright bad — is no secret. In fact, Leonard Arrington and Davis Bitton (LDS Church Historians at the time) wrote a book famously entitled <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/094121401X" REL="nofollow"><I>Saints Without Halos</I></A>.<BR/><BR/>What this fact has to do with the propriety of Joseph's polygamous marriages is unclear to me. Please stick to the subject. We can address your accusation that Mormons are evil in another thread.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04120374705032268459noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7139169.post-1143582200240864062006-03-28T15:43:00.000-06:002006-03-28T15:43:00.000-06:00But why shouldn't he just follow your example, RFP...But why shouldn't he just follow your example, RFP, and simply ignore most of the questions and issues put to him?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com