Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Recommended Posts

and I wonder why he happened to show up for a tiny and unpublicized youth fireside in American Fork.

It was a wonderful opportunity for him to shock and awe you in front of lds youth. I am sure that he was eager to put his plan into action, looking forward to the youtube posting of you making a fool of yourself. But...you came through like a trooper and made a fool of him. Good job.

Link to comment

It was in the Relief Society room.

 

Just a small, informal weekday fireside.  I went in without any notes or pre-formed agenda, thinking that I would just make a few remarks to prime the pump and then open it up for questions.

 

I wasn't expecting two fairly hostile adult ex-Mormons to be there.  One was local, and he was, far and away, the more mild of the two.  The other, who turned out to be Mike Norton, was completely unknown to the locals.  I don't know how he heard of the event, nor why he would have chosen that one, particularly, to attend.  I often give public talks along the Wasatch Front -- tomorrow evening up in Sandy, for example -- and I wonder why he happened to show up for a tiny and unpublicized youth fireside in American Fork.

Perhaps he saw it mentioned on your blog. You may be dealing with another stalker. Although you'll be able to recognize him after this.

Link to comment

Perhaps he saw it mentioned on your blog. You may be dealing with another stalker. Although you'll be able to recognize him after this.

 

He also mentioned to me in a comment on YouTube that he is one of your Facebook friends, Dan.  I would suggest "de-friending" him.

Link to comment

He also mentioned to me in a comment on YouTube that he is one of your Facebook friends, Dan.  I would suggest "de-friending" him.

Okay, I am going to be the one to say it first...

"With friends like that...."

Link to comment

It was in the Relief Society room.

 

Just a small, informal weekday fireside.  I went in without any notes or pre-formed agenda, thinking that I would just make a few remarks to prime the pump and then open it up for questions.

I wasn't expecting two fairly hostile adult ex-Mormons to be there.  One was local, and he was, far and away, the more mild of the two.  The other, who turned out to be Mike Norton, was completely unknown to the locals.  I don't know how he heard of the event, nor why he would have chosen that one, particularly, to attend.  I often give public talks along the Wasatch Front -- tomorrow evening up in Sandy, for example -- and I wonder why he happened to show up for a tiny and unpublicized youth fireside in American Fork.

Wasn't it for parents as well? Were you there due the ward members reaction to a Bishopric member leaving the Church? Perhaps a different question, what was your purpose in being there, especially without notes?

Link to comment

This only bump I had (from Dan's comments) was Dan's statement "evidence pretty conclusive Joseph was not having sex with most of those women. Uhhhm, maybe not with any of them."

I didn't think there was an out that JS wasn't having sex with ANY of his plural wives... unless you throw out the sworn testimony of some of his still faithful wives given during the Temple Lot case. Wasn't there like 9-13 testimonies given saying that the unions had sexual relations involved?

Edited by Brian 2.0
Link to comment

Okay, I am going to be the one to say it first...

"With friends like that...."

 

Amen to that!

 

The thing is, Dan may not have even been aware that Norton was on his friends list.  If you get a bulk of requests, it's easy to just approve them and not realize exactly who you are approving.  I'm sure that's what probably happened in this case.

Link to comment

Amen to that!

 

The thing is, Dan may not have even been aware that Norton was on his friends list.  If you get a bulk of requests, it's easy to just approve them and not realize exactly who you are approving.  I'm sure that's what probably happened in this case.

I probably err on the careful side with that. A lot of creeps out there.

Link to comment

I guess you have to say that a good dozen of faithful women saints were lying under oath though.

 

Easy enough to accuse people over a hundred years dead of perjury.  Can't expect any contradictions in that case.  I'd have to say that it's fairly slimy to slander people who are in no position to defend themselves, and who otherwise have good reputations.

 

I suppose you would say that David Whitmer was a perjurer as well.  Easy enough to do.

Link to comment

Easy enough to accuse people over a hundred years dead of perjury. Can't expect any contradictions in that case. I'd have to say that it's fairly slimy to slander people who are in no position to defend themselves, and who otherwise have good reputations.

I suppose you would say that David Whitmer was a perjurer as well. Easy enough to do.

For the record, I'm not accusing anyone of perjury. I'm saying anyone who claims Joseph didn't have sex with any of his plural wives is accusing faithful women of perjury. Edited by Brian 2.0
Link to comment

Perhaps he saw it mentioned on your blog. You may be dealing with another stalker. Although you'll be able to recognize him after this.

 

I would have to check to see whether I mentioned it on my blog.  I don't think so.

 

I typically use my blog to mention significant public lectures -- that's one of the reasons I have a blog -- but this was just a small youth fireside in a particular ward, done for a friend.

 

I have no idea how Mike Norton found out about the thing.  Apparently, somebody asked him and he specifically refused to say.

Link to comment

Did Peterson claim that Joseph Smith had sex with none of his plural wives?

 

Only if you take your comments out of their context, it seems to me.  As I recall you were either talking about the younger girls he married or the women married to other men.  Can't remember which. 

Link to comment

Perhaps he saw it mentioned on your blog. You may be dealing with another stalker. Although you'll be able to recognize him after this.

Not if he wears one of those Groucho Marx glasses/big nose/mustache combos . . . :)

Link to comment

Perhaps a different question, what was your purpose in being there, especially without notes?

DP needs notes? I think he can wing more apologetic information from memory than many people could Google in the same time.

Link to comment

Did Peterson claim that Joseph Smith had sex with none of his plural wives?

Only if you take your comments out of their context, it seems to me.  As I recall you were either talking about the younger girls he married or the women married to other men.  Can't remember which. 

 

I'm pulling from the video.  You didn't stake your claim that Joseph Smith had sex with none of his plural wives, but you were offering that as an option.  

 

[NOTE:  I think whomever did this video is completely out of line and that was not remotely close to the right forum to ask you those questions, so don't take my comments as if I'm championing him]

 

I can't link to the video, but it's the first one and he asks a lengthy question regarding polygamy/14-year-olds/polyandry.  After the question you go into the three levels section and then say the quote below so there is some space between to figure out the exact context, but the comment was this (at around 2:20):

 

"Now on the polygamy issue.  First of all I would challenge several of those claims.  I think the evidence is pretty conclusive that Joseph was not having sex with most of these women, maybe not with any of them."

 

The question then goes into "multiply and replenish" and it gets into DNA and children.  

 

My initial bump was on the "maybe not with any of them" because that option goes against the court testimonies given from the faithful women in the temple lot case.  The evidence of sex vs. no-sex is obviously hard to find, as you said most people back then weren't making public statements on their sexual lives.   But if there is any evidence that is "pretty conclusive", it's that Joseph Smith was having sex with some of his plural wives.  Also, I don't know what conclusive evidence we have that Joseph was "not having sex with most of these women", beyond the lack of children argument... which is a decent argument... but I wouldn't call it conclusive.

 

Like I said, there was a big gap between his questions and this statement so perhaps your "these women" was referring to 14-year-olds or polyandrous marriages, I just thought it was referring to all Joseph Smith's wives, especially since you said he wasn't having sex with "most" of these women.

Link to comment

I'm pulling from the video.  You didn't stake your claim that Joseph Smith had sex with none of his plural wives, but you were offering that as an option.  

 

[NOTE:  I think whomever did this video is completely out of line and that was not remotely close to the right forum to ask you those questions, so don't take my comments as if I'm championing him]

 

I can't link to the video, but it's the first one and he asks a lengthy question regarding polygamy/14-year-olds/polyandry.  After the question you go into the three levels section and then say the quote below so there is some space between to figure out the exact context, but the comment was this (at around 2:20):

 

 

The question then goes into "multiply and replenish" and it gets into DNA and children.  

 

My initial bump was on the "maybe not with any of them" because that option goes against the court testimonies given from the faithful women in the temple lot case.  The evidence of sex vs. no-sex is obviously hard to find, as you said most people back then weren't making public statements on their sexual lives.   But if there is any evidence that is "pretty conclusive", it's that Joseph Smith was having sex with some of his plural wives.  Also, I don't know what conclusive evidence we have that Joseph was "not having sex with most of these women", beyond the lack of children argument... which is a decent argument... but I wouldn't call it conclusive.

 

Like I said, there was a big gap between his questions and this statement so perhaps your "these women" was referring to 14-year-olds or polyandrous marriages, I just thought it was referring to all Joseph Smith's wives, especially since you said he wasn't having sex with "most" of these women.

I think that it would be much more damaging if any of these women spoke harshly of Joseph Smith. If just a couple of these women would have claimed that joseph was in it for the sex, the lds church would be in trouble today. But it seems that the women had nothing but good things to say about polygamy and being sealed to Joseph Smith. I haven't seen a harsh word about him from his plural wives.

Link to comment

I think that it would be much more damaging if any of these women spoke harshly of Joseph Smith. If just a couple of these women would have claimed that joseph was in it for the sex, the lds church would be in trouble today. But it seems that the women had nothing but good things to say about polygamy and being sealed to Joseph Smith. I haven't seen a harsh word about him from his plural wives.

 

I'm not accusing Joseph Smith of abuse or harsh treatment.  

 

You're not saying that lack of plural wives saying that Joseph Smith was "in it for the sex" is evidence that Joseph Smith wasn't having sex with his plural wives are you?

Link to comment

Why is it such a big deal to debate and figure out whether or not Joseph Smith had sex with his plural wives? Can someone give me a direct answer to that question?

I just don't understand why everyone has no problem with all of the other early polygamous Prophets having sexual relations with their plural wives and yet, some will fight and argue vehementally that Joseph Smith did not (or that we just don't know for sure).

Why would anyone assume that Joseph Smith lived the principle of polygamy differently than any of the other early church members and leaders lived it? To me, it's no big deal that he had relations with his wives. Why wouldn't he have with most of them?

Link to comment

Why is it such a big deal to debate and figure out whether or not Joseph Smith had sex with his plural wives? Can someone give me a direct answer to that question?

I just don't understand why everyone has no problem with all of the other early polygamous Prophets having sexual relations with their plural wives and yet, some will fight and argue vehementally that Joseph Smith did not (or that we just don't know for sure).

Why would anyone assume that Joseph Smith lived the principle of polygamy differently than any of the other early church members and leaders lived it? To me, it's no big deal that he had relations with his wives. Why wouldn't he have with most of them?

Very good point. No one seems to argue that fact the Brigham Young had sex with is wives. Why should it make any difference that Joseph Smith did? One problem is that Joseph Smith lied about being involved in polygamy all the way up to his death. Maybe if he had been more forth coming then, it would not be an issue today. 

Link to comment

Very good point. No one seems to argue that fact the Brigham Young had sex with is wives. Why should it make any difference that Joseph Smith did? One problem is that Joseph Smith lied about being involved in polygamy all the way up to his death. Maybe if he had been more forth coming then, it would not be an issue today.

Yes, I know that Joseph Smith publicly denied living polygamy but most of us know that the evidence shows he did live it. So, why do members go as far as admitting he lived polygamy but claim he lived it differently than any of the other early church members and leaders? Why say, "Well yes, he took plural wives.....BUT....he did not have sex with them!"? Isn't part of living the principle to multiply?
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...