My Response To Jeremy Runnels Part 1 Hales And Google

[sonova perdition]

Wow, two posts without a single argument in them! First the Caligula comment--the quote from Runnels is,"Here’s what Helen Mar Kimball confided to a close friend in Nauvoo about her marriage to Joseph Smith" The Caligunator writes "Wrong. The quote is from Catherine Lewis who claims she overheard Helen speaking with her mother [in Nauvoo]". So Runnells is wrong...how. Seems to me he cited the material accurately. Your inability to accept it or to argue against it isn't his issue, Little Boot, it's yours.

 

As regards Mormon Debris Thinker--in terms of Joseph Smith and his polygamy and polyandry you write,"That is your religious belief, what is the evidence for you accusation? Late anti-mormon sources?" Actually I'll let my fifth generation mormon/zion genes take over and tell you," Get off your lazy Pratt and look it up yourself." The info is out there in sources, not anti- nor pro-mormon sources, just historical sources. the kind written by academics who don't have a religious axe to grind. Most aren't Mormon, but as the Mormon can only claim some .21% of the entire population of the globe--that isn't surprising. And I don't believe in it like a faith or a religion, I rely on it as science, the human science of history. Regarding the historians of Mormon polygamy and the anaesthesiologist Hales you state,"I simply said they don't have serious issues with Hales, they may just disagree on some interpretations," after my first foray. When in fact you said in your response to Runnells,"

"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."

 

Excluding Cheryl Bruno who is neither a scholar nor an historian, the remaining three PhDs all speak for themselves and do not require quoting, suffice it to say that their statements were the best that Doctor (Count Backward from 100) Hales could get from them to slap on the back of one of his books. In essence none agree with him, and not one of the statements are laudatory, period. Finally Mormon UnFree Thinker--is that all you got? I haven't even descended on the second response to Runnells and your coming education on mitochondrial DNA studies in Southern Mexico and Northern Guatemala.

[Duncan]

Wow, two posts without a single argument in them! First the Caligula comment--the quote from Runnels is,"Here’s what Helen Mar Kimball confided to a close friend in Nauvoo about her marriage to Joseph Smith" The Caligunator writes "Wrong. The quote is from Catherine Lewis who claims she overheard Helen speaking with her mother [in Nauvoo]". So Runnells is wrong...how. Seems to me he cited the material accurately. Your inability to accept it or to argue against it isn't his issue, Little Boot, it's yours.

 

As regards Mormon Debris Thinker--in terms of Joseph Smith and his polygamy and polyandry you write,"That is your religious belief, what is the evidence for you accusation? Late anti-mormon sources?" Actually I'll let my fifth generation mormon/zion genes take over and tell you," Get off your lazy Pratt and look it up yourself." The info is out there in sources, not anti- nor pro-mormon sources, just historical sources. the kind written by academics who don't have a religious axe to grind. Most aren't Mormon, but as the Mormon can only claim some .21% of the entire population of the globe--that isn't surprising. And I don't believe in it like a faith or a religion, I rely on it as science, the human science of history. Regarding the historians of Mormon polygamy and the anaesthesiologist Hales you state,"I simply said they don't have serious issues with Hales, they may just disagree on some interpretations," after my first foray. When in fact you said in your response to Runnells,"

"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."

 

Excluding Cheryl Bruno who is neither a scholar nor an historian, the remaining three PhDs all speak for themselves and do not require quoting, suffice it to say that their statements were the best that Doctor (Count Backward from 100) Hales could get from them to slap on the back of one of his books. In essence none agree with him, and not one of the statements are laudatory, period. Finally Mormon UnFree Thinker--is that all you got? I haven't even descended on the second response to Runnells and your coming education on mitochondrial DNA studies in Southern Mexico and Northern Guatemala.

 

 

well, the Helen Mar Kimball conversation to a close friend implies she gave the source whereas if Catherine Lewis overhearing HMK speaking with a close friend then the source would be Catherine Lewis and so ideally first person accounts are better than second hand overheard conversations. So, I would prefer that HMK would have given the source but it looks like that isn't the case and all that is available is what Catherine Lewis said that HMK had said-So, Runnells should have, but didn't, get his sources correct. By the way I am not sure what your problem is but I bet its hard to pronounce

Edited August 28, 2014 by Duncan

[sonova perdition]

well, the Helen Mar Kimball conversation to a close friend implies she gave the source whereas if Catherine Lewis overhearing HMK speaking with a close friend then the source would be Catherine Lewis and so ideally first person accounts are better than second hand overheard conversations. So, I would prefer that HMK would have given the source but it looks like that isn't the case and all that is available is what Catherine Lewis said that HMK had said-So, Runnells should have, but didn't, get his sources correct. By the way I am not sure what your problem is but I bet its hard to pronounce

 

Ummm Helen Mar Kimball would be the primary source for both the quotes, as the quotation in question is from/about her. How those quotes were obtained is not in question either (making your second preference sentence a bit "slow" for where the comment dialogue is) rather the citation of the quotes is key---and what is being argued here. Runnells failed to state the secondary source, Lewis, which seems to have made Mormon Scree Thinker, a bit perplexed-though Runnell was under no compunction to state the secondary source as it was all documented from a book that is/was generally available. My issue is called perspicaciuossness, and I was infected while earning a higher degree at an Ivy league school.

[Robert F. Smith]

Interesting post.

That being the case, can you make the argument that God cares how old LDS teenagers are before they start attending dances or dating? Or are those policies entirely culturally based?

My personal opinion is that God is not terribly concerned with setting out the precise age at which dating, dancing, or marriage  should begin, but is more concerned how people perform within the cultural strictures of their time and place.  Early Christians, for example, found themselves living within Jewish and Hellenistic cultures which made strong demands upon them to conform, and they even had to accept the notion that a fellow Christian might be a slave (Paul dealt with the matter in Philemon 16, Ephesians 6:9, and Colossians 4:1).

 

The LDS Church has likewise been heavily affected by normative culture (either in conformity with or reaction against), and this is true with variations worldwide.

[Robert F. Smith]

Ummm Helen Mar Kimball would be the primary source for both the quotes,

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

My issue is called perspicaciuossness, and I was infected while earning a higher degree at an Ivy league school.

Hello Perdition,

I see that you are up to your old tricks, and trying to pass off hearsay as a "primary source."  Is that what those exclusive halls of ivy taught you?

[MormonFreeThinker]

Seems to me he cited the material accurately. Your inability to accept it or to argue against it isn't his issue, Little Boot, it's yours.

 

Again, that is a late anti-mormon work, read page 195 

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

 

I care about good evidence. 

 

 

As regards Mormon Debris Thinker--in terms of Joseph Smith and his polygamy and polyandry you write,"That is your religious belief, what is the evidence for you accusation? Late anti-mormon sources?" Actually I'll let my fifth generation mormon/zion genes take over and tell you," Get off your lazy Pratt and look it up yourself." The info is out there in sources, not anti- nor pro-mormon sources, just historical sources.

 

You wrote, "sworn testimony of Sarah Pratt and Smith's attempts to marry her while Orson was out on a mission"

 

Critics always think they have irrefutable evidence.  Please link to the unbiased historical source and the "massive" evidence,  CFR. Link to a respected peer-reviewed journal.  

 

Hales could get from them to slap on the back of one of his books. In essence none agree with him, and not one of the statements are laudatory, period. 

 

CFR, what is the evidence that all of them have significant disagreements with Hales?  You are wasting my time. 

 

Compton says Hales is a scholar, and he only disagrees with some of Hales conclusions. 

 

"the first thorough treatment of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages written by a conservative Mormon scholar, is a landmark in the historiography of Mormon polygamy. While I disagree with some of Hales’s conclusions, I admire his willingness to confront difficult topics and the depth of his research. This impressive work furthers the ongoing dialogue in the Mormon historical community on a fascinating and challenging aspect of the life and teachings of Mormonism’s founding prophet.” — Todd M. Compton 

 

Foster says Hales is a fellow scholar. 

 

“Brian Hales is an exceptionally thorough, meticulous, and evenhanded researcher and assessor of Joseph Smith’s complex and controversial polygamous practices and the theological rationale that supported them. His path-breaking and indispensable three-volume study provides the most comprehensive documentation and assessment yet available of the extant evidence on the topic, even though Hales’s fellow scholars of Joseph Smith’s polygamy may not always find persuasive the ways in which he interprets and contextualizes his evidence.” — Lawrence Foster

Edited August 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[MormonFreeThinker]

I rely on it as science, the human science of history. 

 

I am still waiting for the evidence

 

"Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past. 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." - Bart Ehrman

Edited August 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Duncan]

Ummm Helen Mar Kimball would be the primary source for both the quotes, as the quotation in question is from/about her. How those quotes were obtained is not in question either (making your second preference sentence a bit "slow" for where the comment dialogue is) rather the citation of the quotes is key---and what is being argued here. Runnells failed to state the secondary source, Lewis, which seems to have made Mormon Scree Thinker, a bit perplexed-though Runnell was under no compunction to state the secondary source as it was all documented from a book that is/was generally available. My issue is called perspicaciuossness, and I was infected while earning a higher degree at an Ivy league school.

 

hmmm you and Runnells would be right only if HMK told a close friend something and then wrote it down, but she didn't and that's where Catherine Lewis comes in, Lewis overheard HMK talking to someone else and so now it's an overheard conversation rather than something personally experienced. I have a degree in History and not from an Ivy league school and even I figured it out cha cha cha

[ERayR]

I am still waiting for the evidence

 

"Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past. The problem with historians is they can’t repeat an experiment.

 

Extrapolate this to your macro-evolution threads.

[ERayR]

hmmm you and Runnells would be right only if HMK told a close friend something and then wrote it down, but she didn't and that's where Catherine Lewis comes in, Lewis overheard HMK talking to someone else and so now it's an overheard conversation rather than something personally experienced. I have a degree in History and not from an Ivy league school and even I figured it out cha cha cha

 

Ivy is over rated.  Personally I prefer sage brush.

[MormonFreeThinker]

Extrapolate this to your macro-evolution threads.

 

Historical accounts are not DNA evidence. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ivy is over rated.  Personally I prefer sage brush.

Maybe a refund is in order?

[sonova perdition]

I am still waiting for the evidence

 

"Historians can only establish what probably happened in the past. 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." - Bart Ehrman

 What happened is only the first iteration of History, the second is drawing conclusions about it and the third is being able to predict human activity on the basis of those conclusions. Note here that Marx and Brigham Young both attempted this latter activity, one with scads of data, one without, and both were dead wrong. Odd, huh?

Of the three historians cited only one expresses any interest in or approval of Hale's conclusions. The rest are silent--though they admit he has done a prodigious, though partisan job gathering evidence together in one, actually three places. In terms of sources for the Helen Mar Kimball, either accept it as virtually every historian in the known world (minus apologists and anyone who ever drew down pay from FAIR Mormon) or don't as virtually every rabid hyper-conservative apologist mormon would. As regards Sarah Pratt please refer to Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought; Volume 19, Number 2, Summer 1986, pps 69 - 100. In the article titled Sarah M. Pratt;The Making of an Apostate, author Richard S. Von Wagoner teases out the threads of Ms. Pratt's attempted seduction by Joseph Smith.  I won't cite a peer reviewed source again, as you have avoided it. And demanding citations mid-argument from an opponent is just bad form and unsportsmanlike. Two things I'm begiining to expect from some of the "wits" on this site. And citing a book which by definition, save for anthologies of articles, are not peer-reviewed.

You realize of course that by splitting the world into anti and pro mormon fragments that you're missing the nuances that make life an interesting journey. But if it works for you, what the heck...

 

Some advice from a moderator: Please settle in slowly and get a feel for the board. We don't like name calling or twisting a poster's screen name into a pejorative  (in your previous posts)

[Pahoran]

Finally you state that Hales work is accepted by most histporians of polygamy. Odd, I can't find one, except for an apologist, willing to even discuss his work seriously. Most consider him for what he is, a fraud and charlatan, trying to clear Joseph Smith's name without addressing the issue of the ~33 wives, their testimonies, sworn or otherwise, that we know about or can verify.

 

 

 

A fraud and a charlatan?

 

And this is your (ahem) "scholarly" opinion, is it?

 

Oh dear.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[MormonFreeThinker]

you didn't reply to all my points in post 56

Edited August 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[Pahoran]

Wow, two posts without a single argument in them! First the Caligula comment

You are rude. Calmoriah is a highly respected poster around here. You might eventually get to that status, but not if you keep throwing gratuitous insults at people.

--the quote from Runnels is,"Here’s what Helen Mar Kimball confided to a close friend in Nauvoo about her marriage to Joseph Smith" The Caligunator writes "Wrong. The quote is from Catherine Lewis who claims she overheard Helen speaking with her mother [in Nauvoo]". So Runnells is wrong...how. Seems to me he cited the material accurately. Your inability to accept it or to argue against it isn't his issue, Little Boot, it's yours.

And you are flat wrong.

The primary source in the case of an overheard conversation is the person who claims to have overheard it. In fact, the primary source for any conversation is the person who reported it, and not any claimed participants. Thus, when Runnels glibly asserts that "Here’s what Helen Mar Kimball confided to a close friend in Nauvoo about her marriage to Joseph Smith," he's trying to "improve" the value of the source from hearsay to a first-hand report.

 

As regards Mormon Debris Thinker--in terms of Joseph Smith and his polygamy and polyandry you write,"That is your religious belief, what is the evidence for you accusation? Late anti-mormon sources?" Actually I'll let my fifth generation mormon/zion genes take over

Knowledge is not transmitted genetically. Your fifth generation Mormon genes don't mean jack.

I suggest you try again.

Regards,

Pahoran

[MormonFreeThinker]

 As regards Sarah Pratt please refer to Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought; Volume 19, Number 2, Summer 1986, pps 69 - 100. In the article titled Sarah M. Pratt;The Making of an Apostate, author Richard S. Von Wagoner 

 

Richard S. Von Wagoner is a clinical audiologist, not a respected historian. One historian described Van Wagoner's Sidney Rigdon as providing "a near-caricature of early Mormon history as a backdrop….he has written a history by innuendo, not a balanced study that has carefully analyzed the earliest sources or fully considered a number of recent scholarly monographs." [David J. Whittaker, "Review of Richard Van Wagoner's Sidney Rigdon: A Portrait of Religious Excess," Journal of Mormon History 23/1 (Spring 1997): 192–193.]. The Mormon History Association (MHA) was founded in December 1965 at the American Historical Association.

 

You wrote, "take a look at the sworn testimony of Sarah Pratt and Smith's attempts to marry her while Orson was out on a mission"

 

The Dialogue paper you cited says nothing about a first hand account of Sarah making that accusation, it was John C. Bennett. Read the Papers you cite "During the visit, as Bennett describes it"  "But according to Bennett, the Prophet was persistent" 

 

Even if there is a first hand account somewhere, it would prove nothing. Is that the massive evidence you have?

 

I am very disappointed, you are wasting my time, I am realizing that you have no good evidence. I usually do not argue with critics. 

 

 

 In terms of sources for the Helen Mar Kimball, either accept it as virtually every historian in the known world 

 

 

I am not sure what you are taking about, but the account quoted by Runnels is a late anti-mormon work,  read page 195 

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

 

Compton says Hales is a scholar, and he only disagrees with some of Hales conclusions. 

 

"the first thorough treatment of Joseph Smith’s plural marriages written by a conservative Mormon scholar, is a landmark in the historiography of Mormon polygamy. While I disagree with some of Hales’s conclusions, I admire his willingness to confront difficult topics and the depth of his research. This impressive work furthers the ongoing dialogue in the Mormon historical community on a fascinating and challenging aspect of the life and teachings of Mormonism’s founding prophet.” — Todd M. Compton 

 

Foster says Hales is a fellow scholar. 

 

“Brian Hales is an exceptionally thorough, meticulous, and evenhanded researcher and assessor of Joseph Smith’s complex and controversial polygamous practices and the theological rationale that supported them. His path-breaking and indispensable three-volume study provides the most comprehensive documentation and assessment yet available of the extant evidence on the topic, even though Hales’s fellow scholars of Joseph Smith’s polygamy may not always find persuasive the ways in which he interprets and contextualizes his evidence.” — Lawrence Foster

Edited August 28, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker

[USU78]

Ivy is over rated.  Personally I prefer sage brush.

 

Another Aggie?  Liking the place where the sagebrush grows?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The primary source in the case of an overheard conversation is the person who claims to have overheard it. In fact, the primary source for any conversation is the person who reported it, and not any claimed participants. Thus, when Runnels glibly asserts that "Here’s what Helen Mar Kimball confided to a close friend in Nauvoo about her marriage to Joseph Smith," he's trying to "improve" the value of the source from hearsay to a first-hand report.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

And to think that some one actually spent a huge amount of money to go to school and  they still argue in this fashion. It really is quite astounding. 

 

"Runnels cited it accurately".  How can you even say that with a straight face?

[ERayR]

Another Aggie?  Liking the place where the sagebrush grows?

 

I had an offer from Texas A & M to their MBA program but no.  I did my undergrad at University of Wyoming and after evaluating the several offers I had UW was the most cost effective for a comparable program.  

 

I have a good friend, I haven't seen in years who is an Aggie.

[cinepro]

Is it unreasonable to believe or expect that inspired direction from God to prophets might from time to time be occasioned by changing cultural and social patterns in society or the Church?

 

Of course not.  But is it also unreasonable to believe or expect that inspired direction from God to prophets might not from time to time be occasioned by cultural and social patterns in society of the Church?

 

When apologists say "but hey, everyone was getting married young back then", we're all supposed to nod our heads and say "ahh yes, truly we can't expect God to command otherwise". 

 

But when my 13-year-old daughter argues "but hey, everyone is going to school dances right now", I'm supposed to shake my head and say "The Church's wisdom on this issue is greater than that of the world's."

 

And since you're arguing that the age of consent is a purely social construct and God might be okay with girls as young as 14 being sealed in polygamous marriages, would you support the legalization of such marriages (even monogamous ones) in modern society?

[USU78]

Of course not.  But is it also unreasonable to believe or expect that inspired direction from God to prophets might not from time to time be occasioned by cultural and social patterns in society of the Church?

 

When apologists say "but hey, everyone was getting married young back then", we're all supposed to nod our heads and say "ahh yes, truly we can't expect God to command otherwise". 

 

But when my 13-year-old daughter argues "but hey, everyone is going to school dances right now", I'm supposed to shake my head and say "The Church's wisdom on this issue is greater than that of the world's."

 

And since you're arguing that the age of consent is a purely social construct and God might be okay with girls as young as 14 being sealed in polygamous marriages, would you support the legalization of such marriages (even monogamous ones) in modern society?

 

One word:  Presentism.

[Buzzard]

Over/Under on sonova perdition getting banned?  I'm guessing he doesn't make 25 posts.  Lighten up, dude. 

[omni]

As a point of interest, a few of Joseph's "polyandrous" sealings were to wives of men who were married to them at a young age.

Esther Dutcher: Married her husband Albert at age 15.

Mary Elizabeth Rollins: Married her non-Mormon husband Adam at age 16.

Presendia L. Huntington: Married her husband Norman at age 16.

Patty Bartlett: Married her husband David at age 17.

Lucinda Pendleton: Married her husband William Morgan at age 18.

We're their husbands middle-aged when they married? You probably wouldn't be too upset if you had a 16 year-old daughter who was dating a boy her age, but had that same daughter been dating a 38 year-old I suspect things would be different. I find it ironic that within the Church today 14 year-old girls are discouraged from even going on a date, yet 150 years ago God was commanding them to marry middle-aged men. Edited August 29, 2014 by omni

[cinepro]

One word:  Presentism.

 

Two words: moral relativism.

 

Which actually makes this whole situation quite ironic.