Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Pahoran

The Great Church History Cover-up

Recommended Posts

And Nazis were in the 20th century with the equal rights amendment. They have about as much in common as your comparison. Not very logical of you.

I'm not getting what your point is. My statement was in response to Pahorans comment about myself having a "presentist" approach. Which was to say that something that wouldn't be right in today's world, cannot be judge against todays standards. My point was that the standard is always the same what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. So it doesn't make a practise justified just because it was during a different era. Your comment seems to further that point.

Share this post


Link to post

It does indeed. You have some kind of cultural blinder that disallows you from seeing anything but your narrow viewpoint. {/quote]

Should I apologize for not being as progressive as you are? If a man takes another wife without getting permission from his first wife, isn't that against the LDS rules of polygamy? Regardless, your "cultural blinder" is absurd, and claiming that a man taking a wife without the knowledge of his first wife as being "normal" is your opinion, but I seriously doubt would be shared by many non-LDS people who don't need to pound the square peg into the round hole to absolve Joseph Smith of deceiving his wife, which this letter clearly shows, regardless of what you dee "normal."

If the importance is lineage and not marriage to a woman, then you had better believe that eloping is just as serious if not more so.

If two people elope it's between them. Your point was that you would be deceived if two other people eloped. A relevant point would be a married man eloping with another woman.

A wife may be many things, she may be a companion, she may be a slave, she may even be superior, but none of those preclude a single objective relationship that "must" exist.

Wow... this pretty much sums up your perspective regarding love between a man and a woman, which isn't part of marriage per LDS doctrine.

That is your sinlge paradigm and has no basis in reality as being the singular form of a communal or cultural relationship.

In your world relationships may be "communal," but assuming a Christian "cultural relationship" one has to consider thou shalt not covent thy neighbor's wife. Joseph Smith sent men away on missions and then married their wives... but that's probably "normal" per your "communal" argument where a wife can be a "slave" isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post

OK, so let's dust off a portion of the letter again:

So Joseph says to the Whitneys that they "cannot be safe" if Emma is there, but if she is not there, then they will be safe. He then reiterates that the Whitneys should only come if Emma is not there. A few questions:

Why do you suppose they (the Whitneys) would not be safe if Emma were present?

Let's look at this logically based on what was stated: "is to find out when Emma comes then you cannot be safe, but when she is not here, there is the most perfect safty."

If you wish to assert that "you" implies the Whitney's are in danger, then Emma must be perceived as the threat. No mention of bad guys or mobs, but "perfect safty" is defined on the condition that Emma is not there. What this probably means is that it's not safe for Joseph Smith, as getting caught by Emma is the concern. Regardless, we know the only condition it is "not safe" is if Ema was there.

Do you suppose that Emma was going to harm the Whitneys in some way?

No, but attempting to imply Emma was the danger is weak IMO, as Jospeh Smith wouldn't spell out "it's unsafe for me if you come and Emma is here" in black and white. Assume Joseph Smith's intention is to be with his plural wife 17 year old Sarah Ann Whitney without Emma's knowledge. You admitted Emma was "uncomfortable" with polygamy... what would anyone expect from a wife who finds out after the fact that her husband was marrying young girls behind her back? The "danger" is clearly regarding whether or not Emma is there, but because it's not spelled out as being a danger to Joseph Smith, doesn't imply it's not when logic is used to explain why it's "not safe" if Emma was there. If this was to be a blessing of some sort, why would it matter if Emma was there?

Was it safer for the Whitneys if Emma knew about the marriage to Sarah? Or was it safer if she did not know?

Are you implying Joseph Smith didn't tell his wife about his marriage to 17 year old Sarah Ann to protect her? Is this another case where the Lord is ok with deception if it's warranted? Where exactly is the line? If polygamy was not Joseph Smith's idea, but God's, why would he go to such lengths to protect Emma by deceiving her? Why did Joseph Smith claim he wasn't practicing polygamy when he was? Was he protecting Emma when he claimed he wasn't? Consider this for joseph Smith's motive for why Emma not being there was "safe":

http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/UT/tribune1.htm

In the Times and Seasons, published Oct. 1st, 1842, there is a list of twenty-six names, including twelve men and sixteen women, who made affidavit to the effect that they knew of no other system of marriage but that published in the D. and C., some of whom, however, about two years since, made another affidavit that they were polygamous wives at that time and that polygamy was practised in Nauvoo. The "revelation," it will be remembered, was not "given" until July 12, 1843, and not made public until 1852, during which time polygamy was both practised and denied by the Mormon leaders. I quote, in proof from the Times and Seasons of Feb. 1st, 1844:

As we have lately been credibly informed, that an Elder of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter-day Saints, by the name of Hiram Brown, has been preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan, this is to notify him and the Church generally that he has been cut off from the church, for his iniquity * * *

(Signed) JOSEPH SMITH.

HYRUM SMITH.

Presidents of said Church.

Do you think Emma would have "kicked Sarah down the stairs" so to speak?

Maybe... but if there was nothing but a blessing going on, she wouldn't have, which would have made it safe.

Was Joseph concerned for his own safety if the Whitneys showed up while Emma was there?

Yes.

How do you translate this concern for safety expressed from Joseph to the Whitneys into "Don't tell Emma?"

By the only condition being it's not safe if Emma is there. If there was anything said about bad guys or danger to the Whitney's, it should have been stated. But, since we know Emma didn't know about the marriage of her husband Joseph Smith to 17 year old Sarah Ann Whitney, and Mr. Whitney married them as "companions" for life, why would one assume anything other than a fear of being caught by someone seeing the Whitneys?

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not getting what your point is. My statement was in response to Pahorans comment about myself having a "presentist" approach. Which was to say that something that wouldn't be right in today's world, cannot be judge against todays standards. My point was that the standard is always the same what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. So it doesn't make a practise justified just because it was during a different era. Your comment seems to further that point.

This is easily demonstrated to be false. Killing other human beings is wrong. But if a terrorist comes to my house and holds my family at gun point killing him would be justified.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not getting what your point is. My statement was in response to Pahorans comment about myself having a "presentist" approach. Which was to say that something that wouldn't be right in today's world, cannot be judge against todays standards. My point was that the standard is always the same what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. So it doesn't make a practise justified just because it was during a different era. Your comment seems to further that point.

It is illogical to compare slavery to polygamy, that is the first error. Presentism is a valid argument, not becasue slavery was acceptable in the 19th century, indeed it was on the wane and found itself more unpopular than ever before due to its mistreatment of human beings. Polygamy was not known for its mistreatment of women, indeed Utah was one of the first states to give women the vote and women in Utah could initiate a divorce if they felt they needed it. Something unheard of in the United States at that time. In fact Utah's divorce rate was such that it was used as a cudgel against the church. Many felt that allowing a woman to choose to leave a marriage was, by its nature, decadent. So the times were much more nuanced and presentism generally gives an ephemeral view of a complicated period in US history and it implies that the same educational, political and cultural environment existed then that exists today. It is little more than self righteous historicity without understanding.

Share this post


Link to post

How did a topic on church history revert to another argument on polygamy and Joseph lied? Closing thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...