On Despising Apostate Sanctimony

[Pahoran]

Gina Colvin, also known (for reasons that are entirely unclear) as "Kiwimormon," is at it again. See here.

I particularly like this ringing declaration:
 

I see it as little other than a form of spiritual abuse to maintain a discourse of high transcendent religious motivation around the character of Joseph Smith when he was, at least in this respect, a womanizing, seducing, Lothario who coopted God in order validate his particular feminine tastes.

Now I don't expect Ms Colvin to know this, because she's a journalist, not a historian. Deep thinking and careful analysis of past events is not what she does; glib quips and flippant headlines are her oeuvre. But the fact remains that Plural marriage, throughout Mormon history, was at all times a deeply religious principle, and no less for Joseph than anyone else. The fact that he worried about it constantly, it gave him no end of trouble, and still he persisted with it, really ought to tell her something.

At least, it might, if only she had the intellectual horsepower to manage it.

But instead, she goes with the utterly discredited "Old Joe's libido" explanation. Which actually explains very little, and leaves far too many unanswered questions.

But what else should we expect of someone who's not only a journalist, but a toxic feminist?

Note that remark about "spiritual abuse." It's a regular theme of hers. Read it again. Is she saying that Joseph was guilty of "spiritual abuse?" Actually no although if you asked her, she'd probably say that he was. No, the "spiritual abuse" to which she objects consists in "maintain[ing] a discourse of high transcendent religious motivation around the character of Joseph Smith" instead of surrendering to her preferred "Lothario" narrative of Mormon polygamy. Did you get that? It's "spiritual abuse" to disagree with her, so shut up.

Read her description of her discussion with her Priests/Laurels Sunday School class. Hands up who really believes that a class of teenagers came up with those expressions of cynicism and disgust without any prompting from their teacher?

I don't.

The comments are also instructive. She smiles benignly upon the most outrageous anti-Mormon propaganda. "Cult mind control?" Really? But a number of other comments have been deleted; clearly there was a commenter who disagreed with Ms Colvin's position, so she silenced him, as she habitually does. But the most damning comment comes, not from anyone who disagrees with her, but from "Rev_Lowery," someone who supports her wholeheartedly:
 

Spoken like someone who really does not believe in their professed religion.

You sure got that right, Rev.

Regards,
Pahoran

[Paddy]

I read her post the other day and I have real trouble wondering how she was able to reconcile this statement with everything else she said.

"I would have sat at his feet and soaked in his emergent and brilliant theology; I would have been loyal to him; I would have followed him and believed in his vision of the heavens and my eternal potential."

If Gina really believe this she would have also accepted Joseph's theology of polygamy. I don't have a problem with people not accepting polygamy or any other gospel principle but don't go around saying you would be a loyal follower when clearly you would not have been.

[rockpond]

I read her post the other day and I have real trouble wondering how she was able to reconcile this statement with everything else she said.

"I would have sat at his feet and soaked in his emergent and brilliant theology; I would have been loyal to him; I would have followed him and believed in his vision of the heavens and my eternal potential."

If Gina really believe this she would have also accepted Joseph's theology of polygamy. I don't have a problem with people not accepting polygamy or any other gospel principle but don't go around saying you would be a loyal follower when clearly you would not have been.

 

My understanding is that Joseph never publicly taught polygamy.  So it is actually possibly that, if she had been a contemporary, she could have been a loyal follower while still despising polygamy.

[Pahoran]

My understanding is that Joseph never publicly taught polygamy.  So it is actually possibly that, if she had been a contemporary, she could have been a loyal follower while still despising polygamy.

 

But he did teach it to people he trusted.

 

And keep in mind that, had Ms Colvin been a contemporary of Joseph's, she wouldn't have been a toxic feminist, since toxic feminism is a recent cultural artifact.

 

So nobody knows whether Joseph would have taught Ms Colvin about polygamy, and if he had, whether she would have despised it as she does.

 

But I find it hard to believe she would have been such a fervent admirer.  When all is said and done, polygamy may have been her deal-breaker, but it's hardly the only thing she despises about Mormonism.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

[Silhouette]

I went and read what she said. What troubles me more than her position on polygamy are the comments the post triggered. There are accusations of mind control, and someone called the Church's efforts in producing the essays bovine excrement. They used the coarser term, but I'm trying to keep it cleaner than the commentator did.

MormonKiwi has opened up a can of worms in posting what she did, and has created another opportunity for the LDS faith to be bashed.

[JLHPROF]

But he did teach it to people he trusted.

 

Which makes me wonder how much more would be revealed to the membership at large if we could all be trusted not to reject it.

[rockpond]

But he did teach it to people he trusted.

 

And keep in mind that, had Ms Colvin been a contemporary of Joseph's, she wouldn't have been a toxic feminist, since toxic feminism is a recent cultural artifact.

 

So nobody knows whether Joseph would have taught Ms Colvin about polygamy, and if he had, whether she would have despised it as she does.

 

But I find it hard to believe she would have been such a fervent admirer.  When all is said and done, polygamy may have been her deal-breaker, but it's hardly the only thing she despises about Mormonism.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

You accusing her of being a liar and calling her a "toxic feminist" tell me what I need to know.

[cinepro]

Gina Colvin, also known (for reasons that are entirely unclear) as "Kiwimormon," is at it again. See here.

I particularly like this ringing declaration:

 

Now I don't expect Ms Colvin to know this, because she's a journalist, not a historian. Deep thinking and careful analysis of past events is not what she does; glib quips and flippant headlines are her oeuvre. But the fact remains that Plural marriage, throughout Mormon history, was at all times a deeply religious principle, and no less for Joseph than anyone else. The fact that he worried about it constantly, it gave him no end of trouble, and still he persisted with it, really ought to tell her something.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

 

Pahoran, it might have been a "deeply religious principle", but it was a deeply religious principle with the express purpose of "raising up seed" to the Lord.  

 

I can understand the inclination to try and put Joseph Smith and Nauvoo polygamy in the best light, but it's kind of a stretch to feign indignation that someone might look at a married 38-year-old man who secretly (without his wife's knowledge or permission) marries a couple dozen other women as having at least something to do with the aforementioned scripture.

Edited November 4, 2014 by cinepro

[cinepro]

Read her description of her discussion with her Priests/Laurels Sunday School class. Hands up who really believes that a class of teenagers came up with those expressions of cynicism and disgust without any prompting from their teacher?

A few weeks ago, I substitute taught my son's 16/17yo Sunday School class. Few of the students had their scriptures, so I asked each of them where they were. One boy (who recently has been having a rough family life with parents getting divorced, dad leaving the Church etc.) responded "I left my scriptures in the bathroom because I like to use them as toilet paper."

He later apologized for the disrespectful comment, but my point is that I don't think we can properly circumscribe the range of comments that might be made in a class of LDS teenagers these days, and I find it easier to believe that it is an accurate account of her experience as opposed to her making it up.

[Pahoran]

You accusing her of being a liar and calling her a "toxic feminist" tell me what I need to know.

Where and when did I accuse her of being a liar?

This is a CFR. Produce or retract, please.

And as for her very evident toxic feminism, feel free to tell me why that isn't an accurate summation of her view.

I have read rather a lot of her blog entries. She rejects -- out of hand -- everything about the Church that conflicts with her feminist ideology. That meets my standard of toxic feminism.

So did you click the link, or have you piously averted your holier-than-thou eyes from her blog?

Are you unwilling to read anything that might not support your assumptions?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Pahoran, it might have been a "deeply religious principle", but it was a deeply religious principle with the express purpose of "raising up seed" to the Lord.

Which, by all (reliable) accounts, Joseph was rather reluctant to put into practice at first.

Again, something that might give pause for thought. But only to those who are capable of thought.

I can understand the inclination to try and put Joseph Smith and Nauvoo polygamy in the best light, but it's kind of a stretch to feign indignation that someone might look at a married 38-year-old man who secretly (without his wife's knowledge or permission) marries a couple dozen other women as having at least something to do with the aforementioned scripture.

I promise you that I "feign" nothing at all.

If someone wishes to pose on the Internet (or elsewhere) as an expert on Mormon things, they need to make an effort to know at least something about what they are talking about.

But Ms Colvin knows nothing, and the less she knows, the more she bloviates.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

A few weeks ago, I substitute taught my son's 16/17yo Sunday School class. Few of the students had their scriptures, so I asked each of them where they were. One boy (who recently has been having a rough family life with parents getting divorced, dad leaving the Church etc.) responded "I left my scriptures in the bathroom because I like to use them as toilet paper."

He later apologized for the disrespectful comment, but my point is that I don't think we can properly circumscribe the range of comments that might be made in a class of LDS teenagers these days, and I find it easier to believe that it is an accurate account of her experience as opposed to her making it up.

What you have reported is plausible as coming spontaneously from a teenager. Note that Ms Colvin tells us that she first gave them her version "about the early practice of Mormon polygamy and how it came about," and only then did she get the jaded, cynical response of, "Yeah right! That’s convenient!"

Understand the difference?

Regards,

Pahoran

[rockpond]

Where and when did I accuse her of being a liar?This is a CFR. Produce or retract, please.And as for her very evident toxic feminism, feel free to tell me why that isn't an accurate summation of her view.I have read rather a lot of her blog entries. She rejects -- out of hand -- everything about the Church that conflicts with her feminist ideology. That meets my standard of toxic feminism.So did you click the link, or have you piously averted your holier-than-thou eyes from her blog?Are you unwilling to read anything that might not support your assumptions?Regards,Pahoran

In your OP you accused her of not being truthful in her account of her Sunday School class.

I don't doubt that she would consider herself a feminist. But "toxic" is an adjective that you've added to describe her.

I had read her essay prior to you opening this thread. And I re-read it before commenting here.

[mormonnewb]

I just don't get it.  Sister Colvin reads a set of facts and comes to a conclusion ... the exact same conclusion that YOU would come to about anyone else but JS.  Warren Jeffs, David Koresh, Jim Jones and dozens of other religious leaders have claimed that God decreed that they should have additional women and you don't believe ONE of them.  Yet, you find it an act of "sanctimony" that someone might not believe JS.

 

Aren't you just as sanctimonious in your belief that JS was the Mary Poppins of the 19th century (practically perfect in every way)?  After all, at least, Sister Colvin is making her conclusion (even if wrong) based on agreed upon facts.  Your conclusion that JS MUST have been directed by God likely was reached DESPITE the facts but do to YOUR spiritual witness of the truth.  So who is being sanctimonious here?  The person who says, "According to A, B and C, which we can all agree upon, I have concluded the following (which we may not all agree upon)" or the person who says, "Because of knowledge that has been revealed to me (and not you) by my HF, you are all wrong"? Hint: Choose Option 2.

 

Or to quote from scripture, "She is rubber.  You are glue.  Whatever you throw at her, bounces off and sticks to you." -- The Book of Mormon(newb)

 

Do not compare people to criminals.

[jwhitlock]

Great post, Pahoran - followed, of course, by the usual cast of characters who condemn anyone who would dare question the integrity of people who make a living tearing down the church.

[tonie]

Great post, Pahoran - followed, of course, by the usual cast of characters who condemn anyone who would dare question the integrity of people who make a living tearing down the church.

 

Funny thing about "making a living tearing down the church"; patheos blogers are paid by bloggers.  Pahoran, drawing attention to her, and linking her blog, thereby generating an increase in page visits to this person specific blog,  is helping create revenue for a person who makes a living tearing down the Church. No such thing as bad press, seems applicable to the situation at hand. If not for Pahoran, very few - if anyone here, would know who this person is.

[Calm]

Pahoran, it might have been a "deeply religious principle", but it was a deeply religious principle with the express purpose of "raising up seed" to the Lord.

I can understand the inclination to try and put Joseph Smith and Nauvoo polygamy in the best light, but it's kind of a stretch to feign indignation that someone might look at a married 38-year-old man who secretly (without his wife's knowledge or permission) marries a couple dozen other women as having at least something to do with the aforementioned scripture.

And any child sealed to Joesph through any of hisealings would have Joseph as his or her father as long as the women sealed to him had children even after his death similar to Levirate marriages...according to the understanding of that time, how is that not at least in part him raising up seed?

How many child did those women who chose to be sealed to him have after the sealing even if other men were the physical father.

Edited November 4, 2014 by calmoriah

[teddyaware]

I just don't get it.  Sister Colvin reads a set of facts and comes to a conclusion ... the exact same conclusion that YOU would come to about anyone else but JS.  Warren Jeffs, David Koresh, Jim Jones and dozens of other religious leaders have claimed that God decreed that they should have additional women and you don't believe ONE of them.  Yet, you find it an act of "sanctimony" that someone might not believe JS.

 

Aren't you just as sanctimonious in your belief that JS was the Mary Poppins of the 19th century (practically perfect in every way)?  After all, at least, Sister Colvin is making her conclusion (even if wrong) based on agreed upon facts.  Your conclusion that JS MUST have been directed by God likely was reached DESPITE the facts but do to YOUR spiritual witness of the truth.  So who is being sanctimonious here?  The person who says, "According to A, B and C, which we can all agree upon, I have concluded the following (which we may not all agree upon)" or the person who says, "Because of knowledge that has been revealed to me (and not you) by my HF, you are all wrong"? Hint: Choose Option 2.

 

Or to quote from scripture, "She is rubber.  You are glue.  Whatever you throw at her, bounces off and sticks to you." -- The Book of Mormon(newb)

In His mysterious economy, the Lord at times choses to test His people by presenting them with the choice of choosing between implausibles that are true and plausibles that are not true.

During the Apostolic Era, the early Christians were presented with the choice of having to believe that a virgin named Mary was the only woman who ever lived whose child was the literal son of God, or that she was impregnated as a consequence of an illicit affair with a Roman soldier named Panthera (as was then commonly believed).

The only way to successfully navigate the waters of such quandaries is to receive revelation from God as to the truth of the matter, because in cases such as these common sense and deductive reasoning will not provide sufficient means to uncover the actual truth.

And yes, though sister Colvin merely applied the tools of logic and deductive reasoning to come to her conclusion that Joseph Smith sinned, she will not be exonerated for doing so because the wisdom of God is more powerful than the wisdom of men, and the Spirit of God is more convincing to the minds of the sanctified than is the reasoning power of men -- and she, unfortunately, has chosen to throw in her lot with the wisdom of men.

It all comes down to revelation. And it is by revelation that I know God the Father is Jesus' father and that Joseph Smith was commanded of God to live a higher law of celestial marriage while on earth, The doubters and condemners will learn, much to their shock and utter astonishment,  that both Mary and Joseph Smith are innocent and that they (the condemners) came to their incorrect conclusions because they ignored or did not listen to the voice of the Spirit.

 

For now, nothing but revelation will do because even if the Church did try to systematically explain to a doubting and cynical world all the reasons for Joseph's actions with regard to celestial marriage, it would not be enough and would only backfire and cause more harm to the Church than if they had remained silent. And here's the reason why:

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. (3 Nephi 14)

Edited November 4, 2014 by teddyaware

[Kenngo1969]

... If Gina really believe this ... 

That's Doctor Colvin to you, buddy!   

 

(I've occasionally fancied someday going into teaching, but not before I get a Master's degree.  That way, I could tell my students, "Although it's an applied doctorate rather than a research-oriented one, I do have a doctorate, so you may call me 'Dr. Go1969' if you absolutely must.  However, I also have a Master's degree, and I've always dreamed of having my students call me 'Master' ..."

[Silhouette]

I just don't get it. Sister Colvin reads a set of facts and comes to a conclusion ... the exact same conclusion that YOU would come to about anyone else but JS. Warren Jeffs, David Koresh, Jim Jones and dozens of other religious leaders have claimed that God decreed that they should have additional women and you don't believe ONE of them. Yet, you find it an act of "sanctimony" that someone might not believe JS.

Aren't you just as sanctimonious in your belief that JS was the Mary Poppins of the 19th century (practically perfect in every way)? After all, at least, Sister Colvin is making her conclusion (even if wrong) based on agreed upon facts. Your conclusion that JS MUST have been directed by God likely was reached DESPITE the facts but do to YOUR spiritual witness of the truth. So who is being sanctimonious here? The person who says, "According to A, B and C, which we can all agree upon, I have concluded the following (which we may not all agree upon)" or the person who says, "Because of knowledge that has been revealed to me (and not you) by my HF, you are all wrong"? Hint: Choose Option 2.

Or to quote from scripture, "She is rubber. You are glue. Whatever you throw at her, bounces off and sticks to you." -- The Book of Mormon(newb)

We aren't part of those "other religions" the way this woman is part of the LDS faith. She's attacking it from within, whereas, though we are perhaps critical of other religious leaders of other faiths, we aren't supposedly active and faithful members of those faiths like this woman is in the LDS faith.

Perhaps that still doesn't make it right that we might criticize those other leaders, but we don't have a supposed testimony of them either. This woman is saying she teaches Sunday School and is active, and "loves" Joseph Smith, etc., yet she tears him down from within.

It makes a difference for me between "us" and "her".

Edited November 4, 2014 by Silhouette

[Storm Rider]

....., but it's kind of a stretch to feign indignation that someone might look at a married 38-year-old man who secretly (without his wife's knowledge or permission) marries a couple dozen other women as having at least something to do with the aforementioned scripture.

 

 

If only what you said was true; but unfortunately, it is not true. Good spin, but the lie remains your foundation. 

[Glenn101]

   The cynical "convenient" comment from one of the students in the class taught by Gina Colvin actually rings pretty true, from a student or any other person who does not have a solid testimony of the restoration of the Gospel and of Joseph Smith as the prophet of that restoration. That attitude is echoed by most critics of the church who have heard of the polygamy issue (and who hasn't by now), and even by many more or less professing LDS, some of whom post on this board.

   But all of those attitudes make light and demean the women who at first struggled with that principle when it was first broached to them, but had a deep and abiding testimony of the restoration and who received a testimony of the principle the same way they received a testimony of the Gospel.

 

Glenn

[mormonnewb]

We aren't part of those "other religions" the way this woman is part of the LDS faith. She's attacking it from within, whereas, though we are perhaps critical of other religious leaders of other faiths, we aren't supposedly active and faithful members of those faiths like this woman is in the LDS faith.

Perhaps that still doesn't make it right that we might criticize those other leaders, but we don't have a supposed testimony of them either. This woman is saying she teaches Sunday School and is active, and "loves" Joseph Smith, etc., yet she tears him down from within.

It makes a difference for me between "us" and "her".

 

And if Sister Colvin were not a Mormon, she would be immediately dismissed as an "anti-Mormon."  So who can question practices of Church leaders?  Certainly, not the faithful -- that's being disloyal.  And for the unfaithful, they are "swine" in front of whom we should not cast pearls.

 

And to be clear, those of us who don't believe that JS was the Poppins can still believe in him as a prophet and the leader of the restoration.  Peter, the rock upon whom Christ built His Church, had some serious character flaws.  Yet, with the exception of one brother in my EQ class, no apologists have run to his defense claiming that he was justified in denying Christ three times (and his reasons were every bit as valid as JS's reasons for publicly denying polygamy).  Instead, we simply say, "Yep, Brother Peter screwed that one up, but he more than made up for it in the end."

 

Why is it unfaithful for a saint to look at the leader of this dispensation and say, "Yep, Brother Joseph got a little carried away with himself with that whole polygamy thing, but he more than made up for it with the restoration of priesthood, sealing ordinances, etc."?  Why must JS either be a rogue or the Poppins?  Why can't he be just a MAN?

[Duncan]

And if Sister Colvin were not a Mormon, she would be immediately dismissed as an "anti-Mormon."  So who can question practices of Church leaders?  Certainly, not the faithful -- that's being disloyal.  And for the unfaithful, they are "swine" in front of whom we should not cast pearls.

 

And to be clear, those of us who don't believe that JS was the Poppins can still believe in him as a prophet and the leader of the restoration.  Peter, the rock upon whom Christ built His Church, had some serious character flaws.  Yet, with the exception of one brother in my EQ class, no apologists have run to his defense claiming that he was justified in denying Christ three times (and his reasons were every bit as valid as JS's reasons for publicly denying polygamy).  Instead, we simply say, "Yep, Brother Peter screwed that one up, but he more than made up for it in the end."

 

Why is it unfaithful for a saint to look at the leader of this dispensation and say, "Yep, Brother Joseph got a little carried away with himself with that whole polygamy thing, but he more than made up for it with the restoration of priesthood, sealing ordinances, etc."?  Why must JS either be a rogue or the Poppins?  Why can't he be just a MAN?

 

 

to quote Pres. Packer about being "just a man" we already know that! he was a man called to be a Prophet

[mormonnewb]

And yes, though sister Colvin merely applied the tools of logic and deductive reasoning to come to her conclusion that Joseph Smith sinned, she will not be exonerated for doing so [emphasis added] because the wisdom of God is more powerful than the wisdom of men, and the Spirit of God is more convincing to the minds of the sanctified than is the reasoning power of men -- and she, unfortunately, has chosen to throw in her lot with the wisdom of men.

It all comes down to revelation. And it is by revelation that I know God the Father is Jesus' father and that Joseph Smith was commanded of God to live a higher law of celestial marriage while on earth, The doubters and condemners will learn, much to their shock and utter astonishment [emphasis added] that both Mary and Joseph Smith are innocent and that they (the condemners) came to their incorrect conclusions because they ignored or did not listen to the voice of the Spirit.

 

For now, nothing but revelation will do because even if the Church did try to systematically explain to a doubting and cynical world all the reasons for Joseph's actions with regard to celestial marriage, it would not be enough and would only backfire and cause more harm to the Church than if they had remained silent. And here's the reason why:

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. (3 Nephi 14)

 

Thus, saith the teddy, amen!

 

At what level of Mormonism do I get to pronounce the judgment of the Lord on other saints?  Is it just when I become a high priest?  And is there a special anointing and setting apart ceremony for that?  "I hereby anoint thee to proclaim which blogger shall be exonerateth for their blog posts and who shall be thrust into the fiery pit of hell (or worse, an eternal argument with Wade Englund about gay marriage).  And I say these things in the name of teddyaware ...."

 

Don't get personal.