My Response To Jeremy Runnels Part 1 Hales And Google

[MormonFreeThinker]

My brief response, brief because I do have a life. 

 

Jeremy wrote, "What a ridiculous claim.Google is a search engine. It is simply a tool. It is not a source. It is not a destination. It is not a conclusion.Google is the taxi; not the location. It's the phone; not the conversation.This is like saying, "The library is not a synonym for seeking." The library is just a tool or gathering place of books, papers, works, and sources.FairMormon is now perpetuating the general perception and reputation that the Church and its apologists do not want its members to be balanced researchers or to look up information about the Church and its history on Google."

 

It is true that the internet is very useful and has a lot of good stuff, but it also has a sea of misleading information and unreliable websites.  

See  

http://www.cob.edu.bs/Library/LIMSHelp_InternetInfo.php#MYTHS

 

Church leaders do encourage the members to "Look for sources by recognized and respected historians, whether they’re members of the Church or not." 

https://www.lds.org/new-era/2013/06/balancing-church-history?lang=eng

 

Jeremy wrote, "the fact is that true scholars do not let their personal biases get in the way of the facts. Brian heavily interprets the facts based on his biases. This is the key difference between apologists and scholars. This is why Brian C. Hales is not a scholar."

 

A scholar is "a person who has studied a subject for a long time and knows a lot about it" 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scholar

 

Brian Hales did his research with the help of Don Bradley, he didn't just do a google search. 

Jeremy has no right to say that Dr. Hales is not a scholar. All scholars have biases, but Brian Hales does not reject the facts. 

 

Jeremy has biases too, for example, he wrote, "Here’s what Helen Mar Kimball confided to a close friend in Nauvoo about her marriage to Joseph Smith: I would never have been sealed to Joseph had I known it was anything more than ceremony. I was young, and they deceived me, by saying the salvation of our whole family depended on it.– Mormon Polygamy: A History by LDS historian Richard S. Van Wagoner, p.53 What could Helen Mar Kimball have possibly meant that her marriage was something “more than ceremony” if not sexual relations?" 

 

Jeremy is quickly making a conclusion before looking at the evidence, that account is likely a late anti-mormon forgery, and that statement is ambiguous.  

 

Jeremy wrote, "The real scholars in the field of polygamy have issues with many of Hales’ conclusions"

 

Not most scholars, maybe some disagreements about the interpretations, but not many serious  disagreements about the facts. 

 

Jeremy wrote, "I'm glad FairMormon asked! Here you go:"

He quoted the scholars out of context. 

 

I am not a scholar, but Jeremy Runnells is light years from becoming one. 

Edited August 26, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Tacenda]

I went to the Sunstone Symposium and sat a few rows back from Jeremy. I observed him and thought of his MS podcast about the CES letter. I think he is in his early phase of a faith crisis and somewhat angry. A lot like myself at first and sometimes still. I think he may continue to read what the apologists/scholars write/say and will get more insight and become a little less angry possibly. I can't help but like the guy.

Edited August 26, 2014 by Tacenda

[Duncan]

if he has the time and interest he should read "That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession" by Peter Novick. It's a big topic on what historians do and how they should go about it. I have at least 10 or more books on my shelf about this

 

the fact that Runnells is using history to prove the Church false falsifies his own claim that Historians don't have biases or shouldn't as he is biased against the Church

[tonie]

Mormonfreethinker, you appear left out some important context. Where can the original discussion, in context, be found. What you address is obviously a rebuttal that Runnels has written.

As to your claim "that account is likely a late anti-mormon forgery, and that statement is ambiguous." Are we just to take your word for it? Or will you provide evidence to substantiate your claim?

If you are going to challenge others, it would be best to provide your evidence during the challenge.

Edited August 26, 2014 by tonie

[MormonFreeThinker]

Mormonfreethinker, you appear left out some important context. Where can the original discussion, in context, be found. What you address is obviously a rebuttal that Runnels has written.

 

You tell me 

 

As to your claim "that account is likely a late anti-mormon forgery, and that statement is ambiguous." Are we just to take your word for it? Or will you provide evidence to substantiate your claim?

 

Don't trust anything I write, do your own research. 

 

Compton notes that it is an anti-Mormon work, and calls its extreme language "suspect."

Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 195.

[tonie]

You tell me

What a childish response. You are the one making claims, I am asking for the contextual source.

Don't trust anything I write, do your own research.

I have read enough of your post to know that I should review the source documents rather than accept your interpretation. Moreover, your above post of "you tell me" and your deliberate unwillingness to provide context and sources is enough for to inform me that I should be suspect of your version of things.

Compton notes that it is an anti-Mormon work, and calls its extreme language "suspect."

Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 195.

You provided some context and source; thank you. Edited August 26, 2014 by tonie

[Robert F. Smith]

if he has the time and interest he should read "That Noble Dream: The 'Objectivity Question' and the American Historical Profession" by Peter Novick. It's a big topic on what historians do and how they should go about it. I have at least 10 or more books on my shelf about this

 

the fact that Runnells is using history to prove the Church false falsifies his own claim that Historians don't have biases or shouldn't as he is biased against the Church

I sympathize with Novick, Midgley, and others who want to counter the silly and facile notion of easy objectivity in historical research, simply because there are indeed built-in biases and Humean distractions in any attempt to reconstruct "true" history.  However, I am equally concerned with the full-throated relativism which accompanies such claims.  After all, historiography is a group endeavor, both synchronically and diachronically, subject to peer review and newly discovered and reevaluated evidence.  No one gets the last word, and realia are of prime importance.  Still, it is well to remember that history is not facts, but the interpretation of facts.  That is where subjectivity comes in, even when we desperately want to control it.  Social constructionists generally get the last word, and rightly so.

[cinepro]

You tell me 

 

 

Don't trust anything I write, do your own research. 

 

Compton notes that it is an anti-Mormon work, and calls its extreme language "suspect."

Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1997), 195.

 

The argument over "intimacy" in Joseph Smith's plural marriages baffles me.  According to Mormon history and doctrine, even if Joseph Smith consummated every polygamous marriage, it wouldn't have been wrong.  That's all you have to say.  Apologists come up with these odd and convoluted justifications and arguments to try explain something that they think is (or would have been) 100% moral and acceptable.  

 

Heck, if sex in plural marriages was wrong, then I've got terrible news for you.  Because even if Joseph Smith was good and never violated that rule, everyone else did.  Especially Brigham Young.  But if Brigham's practice of fathering children with his plural wives was okay, then why is there a need to defend Joseph Smith from the idea that he too consummated his plural marriages? 

 

And both times polygamy is mentioned in the latter-day scriptures, it is directly linked to the commandment to raise up children unto the Lord (according to Abraham's promise; see verses 30-34).  Polygamy was effectively a primitive form of reproductive enhancement, or a way for righteous men to have more children.

 

In other words, even if it were to be established that Joseph Smith never consummated any of his polygamous marriages, it wouldn't make polygamy any "better". 

 

As for Compton, I think this quote provides the needed "context" for this issue:

 

 

Since there is a great deal of evidence that Joseph Smith had sexual relations with his wives, one wonders why he did not have more polygamous children. However, some of his children apparently grew up under other names, as Mary Lightner suggested. Furthermore, he may not have had numerous posterity because he was not able to visit his wives regularly, both because he was often hiding from the law and because Emma, his first wife, watched him carefully. In addition, polygamy was illegal. On top of these pressures, he soon had many wives, which made it more difficult to visit all of them frequently and regularly. Since polygamists generally had favorite wives, Smith probably neglected some of his. Finally, some of his wives were married to other men in polyandrous relationships, so such wives would probably have had children by their “first husbands,” with whom they were cohabiting regularly, not by Joseph. All of these factors would have combined to limit the number of his children. However, it is clear that some of his plural wives did have children by him, if we can rely on the statements of George A. Smith, Josephine Fisher, and Elizabeth Lightner.

 

Despite this evidence, some have argued that Joseph did not have marital relations with his wives, using the following arguments: First, some conclude that Helen Mar Kimball, who married Smith when she was fourteen, did not have marital relations with him. This is possible, as there are cases of Mormons in Utah marrying young girls and refraining from sexuality until they were older. But the evidence for Helen Mar is entirely ambiguous, in my view.

 

http://signaturebooks.com/2010/11/excerpt-in-sacred-loneliness/

Edited August 26, 2014 by cinepro

[MormonFreeThinker]

What a childish response. You are the one making claims, I am asking for the contextual source.

 

I do not link to unreliable websites, but it is not hard to find the webpage I debunked. 

 

 

I sympathize with Novick, Midgley, and others who want to counter the silly and facile notion of easy objectivity in historical research

 

I agree, like Bart Ehrman said, "The problem with historians is they can’t repeat an experiment. Today, if we want proof for something, it’s very simple to get proof for many things in the natural sciences; in the experimental sciences we have proof. If I wanted to prove to you that bars of ivory soap float, but bars of iron sink, all I need to do is get 50 tubs of lukewarm water and start chucking in the bars. The Ivory soap will always float, the iron will always sink, and after a while we’ll have a level of what you might call predicted probability, that if I do it again, the iron is going to sink again, and the soap is going to float again. We can repeat the experiments doing experimental science. But we can’t repeat the experiments in history because once history happens, it’s over."

 

The argument over "intimacy" in Joseph Smith's plural marriages baffles me.  According to Mormon history and doctrine, even if Joseph Smith consummated every polygamous marriage, it wouldn't have been wrong. 

 

It is about the available evidence, Joseph Smith most likely did have sex with some of his wives, but not with all of them.

 

 

As for Compton, I think this quote provides the needed "context" for this issue:

 

That is not page 195, I am talking about the late anti-mormon forgery. 

 

 "The Tanners made great mileage out of Joseph Smith's marriage to his youngest wife, Helen Mar Kimball. However, they failed to mention that I wrote that there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in the marriage, and I suggest that, following later practice in Utah, there may have been no sexuality. (p. 638) All the evidence points to this marriage as a primarily dynastic marriage." 

Todd M. Compton, Response to Tanners, post to LDS Bookshelf mailing list

 

Is Compton an apologist? 

Edited August 26, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[tonie]

 

I do not link to unreliable websites, but it is not hard to find the webpage I debunked.

No one asked for links, nice diversion there. I ask for source(s), yes you claim it was Jeremy Runnels, but where did he post those things (again, I am not asking for links). Secondly, you haven't debunked anything.

[Buzzard]

The argument over "intimacy" in Joseph Smith's plural marriages baffles me.  According to Mormon history and doctrine, even if Joseph Smith consummated every polygamous marriage, it wouldn't have been wrong.  That's all you have to say.  Apologists come up with these odd and convoluted justifications and arguments to try explain something that they think is (or would have been) 100% moral and acceptable.  

 

Heck, if sex in plural marriages was wrong, then I've got terrible news for you.  Because even if Joseph Smith was good and never violated that rule, everyone else did.  Especially Brigham Young.  But if Brigham's practice of fathering children with his plural wives was okay, then why is there a need to defend Joseph Smith from the idea that he too consummated his plural marriages? 

 

And both times polygamy is mentioned in the latter-day scriptures, it is directly linked to the commandment to raise up children unto the Lord (according to Abraham's promise; see verses 30-34).  Polygamy was effectively a primitive form of reproductive enhancement, or a way for righteous men to have more children.

 

In other words, even if it were to be established that Joseph Smith never consummated any of his polygamous marriages, it wouldn't make polygamy any "better". 

 

As for Compton, I think this quote provides the needed "context" for this issue:

Although my semi-informed amateur opinion is that JS had relations with some but not all of his wives, I am of the opinion that none of the polyandrous marriages were intimate, and it would be more problematic if they were. I know this a subject that has generated much debate, and not just on this board, BTW, I have no problem with JS consummating his plural marriages, I just think the evidence points to only a few of them being so. 

[MormonFreeThinker]

 

No one asked for links, nice diversion there. I ask for source(s), yes you claim it was Jeremy Runnels, but where did he post those things (again, I am not asking for links). Secondly, you haven't debunked anything.

 

His Response to FAIR's Home Page on his website, and the comments section here http://rationalfaiths.com/jeremy-runnells-new-expert-joseph-smiths-polygamy/

 

I did debunk his claims, read again, or just wait for part 2.

 

and using late anti-mormon forgeries is not good. 

Edited August 26, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[rpn]

My understanding of that Helen Mar Kimball story is that she said it when she was told she couldn't go to the dances with her friends any more, and that is what she meant when she thought it was just a ceremony.

[Calm]

IIRC, the quote comes from Catherine Lewis who claimed she overheard Helen talking to her mother. I think Nevo posted the entire quote with context in a thread awhile back. A search on it in the search option under his name should pull it up.

The dance issue is a separate story.

Edited August 27, 2014 by calmoriah

[Robert F. Smith]

The argument over "intimacy" in Joseph Smith's plural marriages baffles me.  According to Mormon history and doctrine, even if Joseph Smith consummated every polygamous marriage, it wouldn't have been wrong. ........................................

It baffles me too.

 

...................................................................................

...................................why is there a need to defend Joseph Smith from the idea that he too consummated his plural marriages? 

 

And both times polygamy is mentioned in the latter-day scriptures, it is directly linked to the commandment to raise up children unto the Lord (according to Abraham's promise; see verses 30-34).  Polygamy was effectively a primitive form of reproductive enhancement, or a way for righteous men to have more children.

 

In other words, even if it were to be established that Joseph Smith never consummated any of his polygamous marriages, it wouldn't make polygamy any "better". 

 

As for Compton, I think this quote provides the needed "context" for this issue:

....................................................

Todd Compton is a fine scholar, but his strong self-assurance that Joseph in fact had offspring through some of his polygynous wives seems odd in the absence of any genetic evidence at all.  At least Fawn Brodie (in an era lacking genetic testing) provided no more than rank speculation.

 

By the way, most people today don't realize that a 14-year-old "girl" was considered by many in the 19th century to be of marriageable age, and many scholars speculate that Mary the Mother of Jesus was merely 14 when betrothed to Joseph.  At one time this was considered entirely normal.  Presentism is a barrier to historical understanding.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Calm]

"The argument over "intimacy" in Joseph Smith's plural marriages baffles me.  According to Mormon history and doctrine, even if Joseph Smith consummated every polygamous marriage, it wouldn't have been wrong.  That's all you have to say.  Apologists come up with these odd and convoluted justifications and arguments to try explain something that they think is (or would have been) 100% moral and acceptable. "

It is to combat the argument that plural marriage is about lust.

[Tacenda]

"The argument over "intimacy" in Joseph Smith's plural marriages baffles me. According to Mormon history and doctrine, even if Joseph Smith consummated every polygamous marriage, it wouldn't have been wrong. That's all you have to say. Apologists come up with these odd and convoluted justifications and arguments to try explain something that they think is (or would have been) 100% moral and acceptable. "

It is to combat the argument that plural marriage is about lust.

Tells you what they really feel.

[tonie]

By the way, most people today don't realize that a 14-year-old "girl" was considered by many in the 19th century to be of marriageable age,

Will you provide the reference?

and many scholars speculate that Mary the Mother of Jesus was merely 14 when betrothed to Joseph.

A good tid bit of information but does not address what was acceptable or normal in 1830's to 1850's

At one time this was considered entirely normal.

When? 2500 BCE?; 1 BCE?; 1066 CE?; 1492 CE?; 1835 CE?

It is not relevant that "at one time" age 14 was acceptable, If during the 1830's - 1844 marriage to a 14 year old to someone nearly twice their age wasn't viewed as "entirely normal".

[tonie]

His Response to FAIR's Home Page on his website, and the comments section here http://rationalfaiths.com/jeremy-runnells-new-expert-joseph-smiths-polygamy/

I did debunk his claims, read again, or just wait for part 2.

and using late anti-mormon forgeries is not good.

If you were attempting to debunk Runnells implicit claim that the Church discourage internet research or that the Church discourages viewing critical sources, then you didn't debunk. However, a better challenge to Runnells would be:

"Like anything, you have to approach Church history with balance. ... If you’re spending time on websites that criticize the Church and its history but aren’t spending time in the scriptures, you’re going to be out of balance, and those negative things may have an unduly strong effect on you. If you were in proper balance, they wouldn’t." (Elder Steven Snow, Balancing Church History, Ensign June 2013)

Notice he does not repeat "The truth is not uplifting; it destroys." And look to the point of his talk, balance the sources for Church history (critic and proponent).

Now one obvious problem with this response to Runnells, is what was the position of the Church, with respect critical sources, at the time the Runnells wrote the letter.

[USU78]

Will you provide the reference?

When? 2500 BCE?; 1 BCE?; 1066 CE?; 1492 CE?; 1835 CE?

It is not relevant that "at one time" age 14 was acceptable, If during the 1830's - 1844 marriage to a 14 year old to someone nearly twice their age wasn't viewed as "entirely normal".

 

CFR

[USU78]

Will you provide the reference?

When? 2500 BCE?; 1 BCE?; 1066 CE?; 1492 CE?; 1835 CE?

It is not relevant that "at one time" age 14 was acceptable, If during the 1830's - 1844 marriage to a 14 year old to someone nearly twice their age wasn't viewed as "entirely normal".

 

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2009/11/05/nuptiality-and-propagand/

[USU78]

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2009/11/05/nuptiality-and-propagand/

 

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2010/02/01/19c-nuptiality-and-propaganda-ii/

[tonie]

http://blog.fairmormon.org/2009/11/05/nuptiality-and-propagand/

Biased source.

[USU78]

Biased source.

 

Address the frickin' sources cited therein then.

 

Don't be lazy.

 

Do your own work.

[tonie]

Address the frickin' sources cited therein then.

As in Fairmormon is a obviously biased source? Or should I address that you, citing Keller, are trying to pass 5% or less occurrence as "normal"? Edited August 27, 2014 by tonie