All Activity

I love being a Latter-day Saint, and I personally struggle with the ethics and basic "rightness" of polygamy (as I do with a few other topics, such as animal sacrifice). None of these is anywhere near sufficient to dissuade me from my convictions regarding the Restored Gospel, but they are there. That said, I think we Latter-day Saints do not do ourselves any favors when we circumnavigate difficult or unpleasant aspects of our doctrines. I think the link you are provided is attempting to do that. In my view, the article is not a credible historical assessment. Joseph Smith’s participation in plural marriage is established beyond reasonable dispute by the weight of contemporary and near-contemporary evidence. The site is an advocacy piece that selectively emphasizes public denials while systematically minimizing or dismissing the private practice that the historical record documents. What the site does It compiles Joseph’s and others’ public statements against polygamy (including the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants article on marriage, Nauvoo-era denunciations, and Emma Smith’s statements), notes the absence of documented children with alleged plural wives, highlights later RLDS/Community of Christ denials, and argues that sealings were non-sexual family linkages and that Section 132 was a later Brigham Young innovation. These points are real and well-known. Public denials occurred; the practice was secret; no children with plural wives have been genetically confirmed as Joseph’s; and some family members later denied it. What it omits or downplays The consensus among historians (both in and out of the Church) is that Joseph Smith was sealed to roughly 30–40 women. Supporting evidence includes: Contemporary or near-contemporary statements from participants and close associates (e.g., Louisa Beaman sealing performed by Joseph B. Noble in 1841; accounts from the Partridge sisters, Zina Huntington, and others). Journals and records from the Nauvoo period (including William Clayton’s) that reference the practice. The text of the 1844 Nauvoo Expositor and related controversies that specifically alleged plural marriage under Joseph. Affidavits and temple-lot case testimony from the 1860s–1890s by people who had been in Nauvoo, many of whom described sexual relationships or “time and eternity” marriages. The Church’s own 2014 Gospel Topics essay and the documentary work of historians such as Todd Compton, George D. Smith, and Brian C. Hales (the last of whom is more conservative in interpretation but still concludes Joseph practiced plural marriage). The site treats late testimonies as unreliable while relying heavily on late RLDS denials, treats the absence of children as decisive (ignoring known contraceptive practices, short duration of many marriages, and the possibility of non-consummation in some cases), and reinterprets sealings as non-marital without engaging the language and context used by participants at the time. It does not seriously address the volume of independent, mutually corroborating accounts that would require an implausibly large conspiracy if they were fabrications. Bottom line Public denials are compatible with secret practice; they do not negate it (particularly given the exigencies arising from physical threats at the time). The historical record supports that Joseph Smith both publicly opposed polygamy and privately taught and practiced it among a limited circle in Nauvoo. The site’s contrary conclusion requires discarding or radically reinterpreting the bulk of the participant testimony and contemporaneous documentation while elevating later denials from one side of the post-martyrdom schism. That is not how the evidence is weighed by historians. The practice is not “beyond reasonable dispute” in the absolute sense that every detail is settled, but the core fact that Joseph Smith participated in plural marriage is. Brian Hales' website is a very good resource: https://josephsmithspolygamy.org/ I am curious. If you believe that Joseph Smith never participated in polygamy, then how do you account for Brian Hales and his research? He is, by all accounts, a faithful and devoted Latter-day Saint, so why do you think would he speak and document so much about a topic that is so controversial and difficult to accept? Moreover, what do you make of his scholarship? Thanks, -Smac

Ok. Self awareness / relating isn’t for everyone.

Could you please clarify the bolded item above? I do not see the correlation.

It seems to me one always ought to be cautious buying into claims of some self anointed recipient of visions and revelations that grant that person some special insight. Especially when it blatantly contradicts the body of evidence.

That's the nice thing about this board. We can all ignore each other or limit interactions to suit our preferences. Here, I decline to entertain your curiosity about me individually. If you want to ask me about my views on the sheriff in Arizona, or the Cornell matter, or the "all men are potential rapists" slogan, I will likely respond. Beyond that, no thanks. I acknowledge that. Perhaps, but only in a nominal, de minimis sense. In any event, I would prefer to discuss the topic, and my assessment of the topic. I decline to cooperate. I am not the topic. This thread started with "troubling allegations" against a sheriff in Arizona (who apparently is a member of the Church). Bluebell subsequently brought up the Cornell topic, which in turn has morphed into a revisiting of the "all men are potential rapists" slogan/mindset. I started the thread, so I'm okay with these forays. But turning this thread into a critique or examination of me personally is not appropriate. Please discuss the topics, none of which is me. Thanks, -Smac

You don’t have to engage with me. It doesn’t change my curiosity. Like it or not, this is a social media site. You and I have a relationship. If you’re gonna dive into your career, I’m gonna dive into mine.

I'd rather discuss the topic, and my reasoning and assessment of the topic. The selective refusal to apply the same logic to the racial subset ("all black men are potential rapists") reveals the inconsistency of the position staked out by folks like you. If the justification for “all men are potential rapists” is average strength plus disproportionate offending rates, that justification necessarily applies to black men (who are, obviously, men, and hence all "potential rapists"). If the objection to “all black men are potential rapists” is that it is an over-broad, prejudicial character claim that ignores individual variation, that same objection applies to the claim about men. The fact that one version is socially licensed/acceptable and the other is not does not change the structure of the generalization. It only changes the consequences of stating it. The two statements are not equivalent in social reception, which I think is why folks like you are comfortable affirming the "all men" slogan but not the "all black men" slogan. The former apparently is, to you and your circle, socially acceptable, but the latter is not. The two statements nevertheless remain logically equivalent as categorical group accusations. Affirming the broader claim while treating the narrower one as obviously prejudiced is an inconsistent application of the same standard. And I think that inconsistency is deliberate and ad hoc and unjustified. Those advancing the "all men are potential rapists" do not want to admit the logical equivalence of "all black men are potential rapists" because the latter is prejudiced and socially unacceptable, whereas the former is prejudiced but socially acceptable (in some quarters, anyway). The inconsistency reflects the avoidance of the adverse "consequences of stating" the categorical accusation. Nevertheless, if a person thinks that "all men are potential rapists" she must also affirm that she thinks that "all black men are potential rapists." Thanks, -Smac

"Virgin" in a sexual sense. And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" (ESV) Then said Mary unto the angel, "How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (KJV)

I’m so curious about you Smac.

We have clarified five bazillion times In a pretextual and ad hoc effort, yes. The five-word statement "all men are potential rapists" is, on its face, prejudiced. Hence the need to "clarify" and add paragraph-long rationalizations and equivocations and circumlocutions to avoid this patent reality. If that is what you mean, you could say that. That you and others instead resort to the patently prejudiced statement "all men are potential rapists" to purportedly convey this other idea is, in my view, indicative of something else going on. "All men are potential rapists" is patently accusatory. I will continue to speak against patent prejudice. "All Muslims are potential terrorists." "All gay men are potential pedophiles." "All women are potential prostitutes." "All black men are potential rapists." I denounce all of these categorical denigrations because they are per se prejudiced. I likewise denounce "All men are potential rapists" as per se prejudiced. Thanks, -Smac

We have clarified five bazillion times that this statement indicates a woman’s defensive self protective position given precarious situations and does not identify a latant desire within every man. But go off.

You're good at english but not great at interpersonal communication. I think my comments are generally pretty lucid. Okay. I disagree with your perspective that "all men are potential rapists." I find that to be a horrible, prejudiced, unchristian idea that should be set aside by any and all professing Latter-day Saints. If we had a complex and nuanced discussion that involved six words, "all black men are potential rapists," I would focus on that phrase and condemn it for its horribleness. Would you? Thanks, -Smac

Here's someone who can brag about their English skills. 5 stars for this post.

You're good at english but not great at interpersonal communication. I didn't say anything in that post where you claim I let my mask slip ( ) that I haven't been saying since the beginning of discussions on this topic. You just think I did because you are so invested in finding ways to discount my perspective that you happily narrowed a complex and nuanced discussion between us on the subject that has been going on for probably over a year and spans dozens if not hundreds of posts down to five words.

"A man is stronger than a woman" therefore "he is potentially dangerous to women". Yes, I accept that. That was not my question. I figured. You and everyone else is fine with saying "all men are potential rapists," but you are not willing to admit the logical corollary that every subset of that category, such as all black men, are also "potential rapists." I think you won't admit this because you see, correctly, the phrase "all black men are potential rapists" as abjectly prejudiced. I am glad you are not prejudiced based on skin color. I hope in time you can set aside prejudice based on sex. "All men are potential rapists" is a per se sex-based prejudiced statement. Thanks, -Smac

There’s no way we aren’t being punked by someone who will argue every minute issue even after being handed clarification on a silver platter. it’s a game, folks.

So, if a man decided to sit right next to her, she wouldn't start to worry? She might. Situational awareness and particularized circumstances are entirely appropriate. What she didn't do, though, is sit in the library while thinking that all men in her vicinity and throughout the world are all "potential rapists." That you refuse to acknowledge that your position is that "all black men are potential rapists" is a rather good illustration. Affirming that statement would obviously be "ugly prejudice." That ugly prejudice remains when you speak of "all Muslim men" or "all gay men" or "all men." It doesn't make a standing character judgement. It is nothing but a standing character judgment. Thanks, -Smac

I would love to have chromesthesia (sound-to-color synesthesia). Other types of synesthesia would probably be awesome too. The thought of experiencing things through multiple senses (that aren't usually associated with that thing) sounds so incredibly awesome. Being able to "see" Vivaldi's Four Seasons, or the Flaming Lips "Yoshimi..." or experience Billie Holiday's music with sight or touch. *swoon* While not so much an ability, and more-so a personality trait that I wouldn't be sad if it was changed... I would love to not get easily bored and/or burned out by hobbies. The second I become good or proficient at something, or learn most of what there is to know about something, it loses all appeal to me and I abandon it. My garage is a graveyard of specialized tools, books, etc. from hobbies that lost their shiny-happy-fun. Other than that, not being able to feel pain would be a welcome change.

What could be reasons why it has become necessary for these women to view their world that way? I reject the premise. There is nothing "necessary" about adopting the abjectly prejudiced worldview that "all men are potential rapists," or else behaving as if all men are potential rapists. This is a choice, not a necessity. "Helpful" to view all men everywhere as "potential rapists?" No. And even if there is something that can be construed as "helpful," then I think Sowell's three questions come into play: Question No. 1: Assuming that publicly declaring that "all men are potential rapists" and "behaving as if all men are potential rapists" "does work" (and is, in some sense, subjectively "helpful"), my question is: Compared to what? Question No. 2: Assuming that publicly declaring that "all men are potential rapists" and "behaving as if all men are potential rapists" "does work" (and is, in some sense, subjectively "helpful"), my question is: At what cost? Question No. 3: Assuming that publicly declaring that "all men are potential rapists" and "behaving as if all men are potential rapists" "does work" (and is, in some sense, subjectively "helpful"), my question is: What evidence do you have? Can you think of any situation where it might be helpful for some women to think of all Black men as potential rapists? Where "A" is predicated on patent prejudice, yes, I refuse to start there. That some women have rationalized (for themselves, anyway) that prejudice based on "the ends justify the means"-style reasoning, or some other reasoning, does not rehabilitate the perspective. Thanks, -Smac

Being good at debate does not inherently mean one is good at comprehension of human psychology and how thought gets expressed and recieved. First, I gotta love that I said "I'm fairly provision in English" (now edited to correct). I think that was an autocorrect thing, though I find quite a few spelling errors in what I post here, I think because I am writing fast and not really checking much. Anyway, I am pretty good at reading English. And I think you are conflating disagreement with misapprehension. Thanks, -Smac

Paul only talks about two types of bodies, the Celestial and the Terrestrial. The Terrestrial is the inferior mortal body and the Celestial is the greater resurrected body. Celestial is not tied to the sun. The word just refers to heavenly or in the sky. The word terrestrial means earthly or not in the heavens. The verse talks about the glories of the sun, the moon, and the stars and all of those are celestial. They don’t talk about the glory of the Earth. It is hard to figure out how you can make the LDS idea work which tries to tie Terrestrial to the moon and then the JST adds Telestial which isn’t a word and ties it to the stars.

" All people are sinners " , hence , keep your head on a swivel !

Being good at debate does not inherently mean one is good at comprehension of human psychology and how thought gets expressed and recieved. Being able to say with precision what you mean also does not inherently lead to precision in interpreting others who use words differently than you do. It probably helps, but it’s not enough. I suspect being a therapist helps much more, but that’s no guarantee either. I had a relative who was a therapist, even taught how to do it at university. Was shocked at how clueless he was about his own family dynamics. He seemed to choose to just ignore what he could not understand. His dad died before he was born and his mom had to struggle and it showed. It seemed to me he learned how to express love from a textbook. And was not able to go deeper. A sweet, gentle, caring man, but his kids have hangups and he had no idea and often complicated things. You are also in a field that rewards you for making the other guy look as less credible rather than attempting to find the best, the most accurate, or most charitable interpretation. It is not necessary for your success…nor your survival most likely. It is not instinctive for women either. My sister got her doctorate in English literature. Taught various English classes at university for more than a decade. Most beautiful and talented writer I know. Lot of hiccups in her life because she didn’t understand others even while getting the highest scholarships and a great transcript, especially for her analysis of literature. Generous, wonderful woman, but shocked at times by others getting offended by something she said or missing the point. She has gotten much better, especially the last ten years. I don’t think she is as defensive or critical of others and that has probably made a difference.

That's the one, I'm mostly drawing from that article. My conclusion is that Joseph did have something that he understood to be ancient characters that he (and others) wanted to 'git translated'. I don't know what they were, or where he got them, but the various accounts do suggest to me that there was something seemingly authentic, otherwise I doubt that Martin would have been able to meet with the top scholars of the day in New York and possibly (according to Knight), Philadelphia. Supernatural yes, divine no. A classicist like Anthon could take an ancient artifact dug from a mound by a treasure digger seriously, and still dismiss the finder's claim to be able to decipher it with magic spectacles/lenses. What Anthon could not endorse publicly was anything said to have been revealed by an angel and paid for by the sale of Harris' farm. The sequence I find most consistent with the sources: Harris saw Mitchill first, then Anthon. Anthon says so in two of his accounts, and Phelps (January 1831) and Knight agree. Anthon seems to have wanted to examine the artifact itself. Knight said Anthon “rote a very good piece to Joseph” asking for the original: "He now began to be anxious to get them translated. He therefore, with his wife, drew off the characters exactly like the ancient, and sent Martin Harris to see if he could get them translated. He went to Albany and to Philadelphia and to New York, and he found men that could translate some of the characters in all those places. Mitchill and Anthon of New York were the most learned, but there were some characters they could not well understand. Therefore Anthon told him that he thought if he had the original he could translate it. And he wrote a very good piece to Joseph and said if he would send the original he would translate it. But at last Martin Harris told him that he could not have the original, for it was commanded not to be shown. And he was mad and said, “What does this mean?” And he tore the paper that he wrote all to pieces and stamped it under his feet, and says, “Bring me the original or I will not translate it.” Mr. Harris, seeing he was in a passion, said, “Well, I will go home and see, and if they can be had I will write to you immediately.” So he came home and told how it was, and they went to him no more. Then was fulfilled the 29th chapter of Isaiah." - Joseph Knight's Recollection of Early Mormon History (spelling standardised) Then 2 Nephi 27:15 has the learned man say “Bring hither the book.” Anthon’s letters contradict each other on whether he wrote an opinion (1834 no, 1841 yes). My best guess is that Anthon did write a cautious opinion along with a request to see the actual plates so he could examine them and translate them. I'll post later about this after I finish fact-checking everything, but when we consider the two books Anthon was working on in 1828, his initial interest in the transcript is very plausible, perhaps probable. Harris then undertsood that Anthon had a deeply professional interest in the plates. After Harris told Anthon that they had been commanded by God to not show the plates, Anthon’s interest turned to anger and suspicion and a retraction of his initial opinion. About fifteen months later, Anthon's role was written into 2 Nephi 27 as the learned man seeking worldy gain and profit instead of the glory of God. (2 Nephi 27:16). Anthon had now been publicly outed as the learned man who originally endorsed the controversial Book of Mormon, so his first letter (1834) explaining his encounter with Harris was calculated to leave out anything that might suggest he had written an opinion requesting to see the plates so he could translate them. afaict nothing written before 1829 connects the trip to Isaiah. The earliest accounts describe it as an attempt to 'git them translated' and any claims that it was planned as a fulfillment come later. But that said, it’s very hard for me to read 2 Nephi 27 as if it was written at any time between 559 BC and February 1828. To me it reads like it was written by someone who knew the precise details of what had happened in Anthon’s office. I'd go a step farther and say the learned opinions (whether written down or not) of Bradish, Mitchill and Anthon discussed in February 1828 were used to support the narrative of the Book of Mormon.

Nvmd