NOM

Apologists love to talk about how we cannot judge people in the past using our standards of today. They do this with polygamy, translation issues, and many more. I got into an argument about Roy Moore and Joseph Smith with a cousin in which that justification was used.
At some point though, you can't use that argument right? Murder is murder, even though "frontier justice" was common. Nowadays we call what Joseph did pedophilia. Do any of you agree that early church leaders shouldn't be judged by today's standards? Or is everyone here here because they are comfortable judging by today's standards?

For me this argument is circular only because my own perceptions have shifted as I've unlearned the church's whitewashed version of Smith. I can see both sides to the argument. Only now I know one is really an excuse for shutting your brain off!

I think pedophile is too strong. So I break it down to the power structure Smith held over his followers. He used that to his advantage coupled with granting fear of losing an afterlife if not succumbing to his desires. He made opportunities as "The Prophet" that otherwise probably would not easily exist.

The other part of this thought I have to contend with is knowing exactly why, what, and how the social conventions of the past truly played out. We just don't know. We can read about it, place ourselves back in time within our heads, and think we know, but realistically unless you lived it, you're just making assumptions. Therefore I hold cognitive bias towards today's standards. Everyone does. It's all cognitive bias.

Power, persuasion, wealth, narcissism, and a high soapbox to preach from eventually lead to sex. There's clearly a pattern that we can even see today with Weinstein, et al.

Humans are strange creatures!

A friend and I were having this argument. I've heard one side say "it wasn't at all about sex," and another side say "it was all about sex" the truth is somewhere in between "it wasn't all about sex." Michael Chrichton wrote that rape was far more about power than it was about sex.

But yes, I am comfortable judging by today's standards. I'd like to think humankind has gotten better over time. If you go back far enough can't you excuse all sorts of terrible things, assault, murder, infanticide etc.? Where do they draw the line? It also kind of destroys the "God is the same yesterday, today and forever" shtuff I keep hearing.

In Mormonism "always do what the prophet says" is THE social convention, whether it's the 19th, 20th, or 21st century. In 1903, a well known economist Richard T. Ely asserted that the Mormon organization "is the most nearly perfect piece of social mechanism with which I have ever, in any way, come in contact, excepting the German army." (Harper's, April 1903) There is certainly as much irony as truth in his statement. One wonders, should it be considered a compliment or an insult?

Emower wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:40 pm Apologists love to talk about how we cannot judge people in the past using our standards of today.

And yet they spare no mercy for people like Thomas B. Marsh, William Law, and Symonds Ryder (however the hell you spell it).

Makes you wonder if Roy Moore ever claimed a heavenly law enforcement officer would shoot him if the girls did not consent back when he was the District Attorney.

I have no doubt that people viewed things differently in the past. Lucy and Ricky (I Love Lucy TV show) could not even be filmed in the same bed together, even though they were married in real life, were wearing pajamas, and were not being amorous.

I'm quite sure our generation aren't the only ones who were judging what Joseph and his cohorts were doing as improper and immoral.

There were plenty of people of his own generation who felt the same way we do. The majority in fact.

Why do Mormons now think it took so long for Utah to become a state? Because the entire rest of the country rejected polygamy as immoral.

Emma Smith's own father rejected Joseph as a suitor because he was dealing in hocus-pocus. He knew the kid was a fraud.

So does Joseph do the right thing and become a productive individual at an honorable trade??

No, he steals the poor man's daughter.....

Our generation isn't alone here. Joseph's own generation felt the same way about him.

Not pedophilia, I think the correct word is ephebephilia.

However, let's judge on the standards of the day:

- bigamy was illegal
- the average age for YW to marry was 21-22.
- young teenagers who did marry, married other teens, not middle aged men.

JS knew full well polygamy was endangering his life.
A mob planned to castrate him.

Clearly the morals of the day do not support his behavior as in any way normal or moral.

Thoughtful wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 12:43 am Not pedophilia, I think the correct word is ephebephilia.

However, let's judge on the standards of the day:

- bigamy was illegal
- the average age for YW to marry was 21-22.
- young teenagers who did marry, married other teens, not middle aged men.

JS knew full well polygamy was endangering his life.
A mob planned to castrate him.

Clearly the morals of the day do not support his behavior as in any way normal or moral.

+1 for these facts of the times - put's the smack down on JS behaviors IMO! Add to this deceiving Emma...when is that ever okay?

Emower wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:40 pm Apologists love to talk about how we cannot judge people in the past using our standards of today. They do this with polygamy, translation issues, and many more. I got into an argument about Roy Moore and Joseph Smith with a cousin in which that justification was used.
At some point though, you can't use that argument right? Murder is murder, even though "frontier justice" was common. Nowadays we call what Joseph did pedophilia. Do any of you agree that early church leaders shouldn't be judged by today's standards? Or is everyone here here because they are comfortable judging by today's standards?

It seems awfully suspicious that we cannot hold a higher standard for men who speak for God. Yes, they were men of their time, but can't we have some spark of timeless divinity about this? Guengis Khan and Julius Caesar were also men of their time. Their impact on history is remarkable, but we also don't try to justify the pain they inflicted on millions of people. Caeasar's book, "The Gallic Wars" reads like "Star Wars" from the point of view of Darth Vader, except that Darth Vader wins.

In contrast, a Lutheran does not have to justify anything silly that Martin Luther did or said. Luther is revered for bravely placing his 95 these on the Wittenberg church, but no modern Lutheran has to place Luther's anti-Semitism on his belief shelf. No Anglican is going to justify Henry VIII being a murderous cretin to his wives. St. Augustine's influence on Christian thought comes from his persuasive writings and no one tries to justify the riotous early upbringing he came from.

One primary reason is that none of these men claimed to prophets who talked directly with God. This is the big difference with Joseph Smith who asserted his own position, discarding nearly two thousand years of Christian philosophy, doctrine, and tradition. Joseph Smith made extraordinary claims of singular authority. He claimed to have talked with a long list of ancient prophets through revelation. Despite this astonishing divine curriculum, his private and public life continued with just as much cliched silliness of innumerable other religious and political leaders. Joseph Smith does not set himself apart as some new and good example of religious leadership.

Corsair wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:40 am

Emower wrote: ↑Sun Dec 17, 2017 2:40 pm Apologists love to talk about how we cannot judge people in the past using our standards of today. They do this with polygamy, translation issues, and many more. I got into an argument about Roy Moore and Joseph Smith with a cousin in which that justification was used.
At some point though, you can't use that argument right? Murder is murder, even though "frontier justice" was common. Nowadays we call what Joseph did pedophilia. Do any of you agree that early church leaders shouldn't be judged by today's standards? Or is everyone here here because they are comfortable judging by today's standards?

It seems awfully suspicious that we cannot hold a higher standard for men who speak for God. Yes, they were men of their time, but can't we have some spark of timeless divinity about this? Guengis Khan and Julius Caesar were also men of their time. Their impact on history is remarkable, but we also don't try to justify the pain they inflicted on millions of people. Caeasar's book, "The Gallic Wars" reads like "Star Wars" from the point of view of Darth Vader, except that Darth Vader wins.

In contrast, a Lutheran does not have to justify anything silly that Martin Luther did or said. Luther is revered for bravely placing his 95 these on the Wittenberg church, but no modern Lutheran has to place Luther's anti-Semitism on his belief shelf. No Anglican is going to justify Henry VIII being a murderous cretin to his wives. St. Augustine's influence on Christian thought comes from his persuasive writings and no one tries to justify the riotous early upbringing he came from.

One primary reason is that none of these men claimed to prophets who talked directly with God. This is the big difference with Joseph Smith who asserted his own position, discarding nearly two thousand years of Christian philosophy, doctrine, and tradition. Joseph Smith made extraordinary claims of singular authority. He claimed to have talked with a long list of ancient prophets through revelation. Despite this astonishing divine curriculum, his private and public life continued with just as much cliched silliness of innumerable other religious and political leaders. Joseph Smith does not set himself apart as some new and good example of religious leadership.

If I'm recalling correctly, many ancient world leaders, including certain Romans, claimed to be born of virgins, directly sons of a God. They claimed a connection to the divine, and perpetuated atrocities nevertheless.

The general public views this, when they now about it, as part of a manipulation package, NOT as a claim on bypassing personal responsibility for their evil deeds.

LDS view David as fallen for his adultery and murder, but give brother Joseph a break already!

Corsair wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:40 am No Anglican is going to justify Henry VIII being a murderous cretin to his wives.

This reminds me of when we took the tour at the Tower of London. I found it very odd how they described numerous cases of the kings ordering someone taken from the prison section out onto the hill for a nice beheading and then brought the body back in, buried it in the church, and prayed over them. Seems like a rather odd religion there. I have a hard time figuring out how their religion made them a better person. I guess they wouldn't have prayed over them if they weren't religious, but I'm not sure that's really any comfort to the person who lost their head over the whole thing.

Corsair wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 9:40 amOne primary reason is that none of these men claimed to prophets who talked directly with God. This is the big difference with Joseph Smith who asserted his own position, discarding nearly two thousand years of Christian philosophy, doctrine, and tradition. Joseph Smith made extraordinary claims of singular authority. He claimed to have talked with a long list of ancient prophets through revelation. Despite this astonishing divine curriculum, his private and public life continued with just as much cliched silliness of innumerable other religious and political leaders. Joseph Smith does not set himself apart as some new and good example of religious leadership.

Remembering the devoutly religious kings of England and their murderous ways, makes me think there's another significant aspect -- not so much history but current behavior. As you mention, we know that other religious leaders of times past had behavioral problems or committed grave misdeeds. Luther, Augustine, Henry VIII, the English kings and the English church leaders before the split, Catholic popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, and on and on. Even more secular than religious leaders. Gandhi was a pretty bizarre guy in a number of ways. Mother Theresa was very problematic.

The difference is that (for the most part) these other religions don't hold these other historical figures up as someone to be revered, as someone to emulate. The churches may not teach about the ancient leaders' failures, but to some degree they acknowledge or recognize the problems. They don't teach constantly in all of their proselytizing and preaching about the life of the leader and how we should follow them.

Part of this is because of the relative youthfulness of the Mormon church. At 187 years, the Church is still quite young for a major religion. It was in 1517 that Luther published his criticisms of the Church. In 1534, Henry VIII established the Anglican church. Many of the other religious leaders and their misdeeds were much older than that. These churches don't focus so much on these old leaders, even if they were their founders, as the Mormon church does. In spite of all of the splinter groups, it is also unusually monolithic in its major organization. The Mormon church claims a direct line of authority from its founder to the current leaders, which give them the right to command. The Catholic church does likewise, but it is so old, so broad, so diverse, that it isn't tied to any one specific leader who we have any historical detail about (or are even sure they existed for that matter).

Fundamentally, this problem is more a creation of modern church leaders than it is about Joseph. Sure Joseph had plenty of flaws and made lots of mistakes, but that doesn't mean that his successors have to perpetuate them.

There is certainly some validity to the argument that we can't judge some historical person's actions and beliefs based upon our current standards. I even want to claim that same privilege for myself. I don't think I should necessarily be judged for my beliefs in the 80's and 90's, though I think in my defense I was in high school during some of that time. I remember being adamant that women couldn't serve in the military, but I recognize that I was quite wrong. I was also kind of anti-gay, at least when I started to get some awareness of what gays are. I was also a devout Mormon and a diligent missionary. I hope all of those things aren't held against me too much. I believe I've overcome a number of those as I've matured. I figure if I make it another decade or two, I'll look back on this time and wonder how I could've been such a blooming idiot back now.

In reviewing Joseph's life, I believe it is fair to give him a pass for not rising above the social conventions and expectations of his day and adhering to those of ours. In some ways he was progressive for his time. In many ways, he was quite typical for his time.

We do have sufficient evidence that a number of Joseph's actions were not acceptable by the social conventions of his day. Court records even. He certainly had critics in his day, whose complaints weren't just differences of opinion, politics, or personality.

I find all of these analyses of Joseph's misdeeds historically and sociologically interesting, but fundamentally pretty insignificant. They really don't matter much.

What matters is how the Church and its leaders behave today. They don't have to perpetuate Joseph's and Brigham's flaws and mistakes yet they adamantly cling to them, lest their own authority be questioned. Whether Joseph adhered to the 21st century conventions or even 19th century is really fairly irrelevant compared to whether the Mormon church today adheres to 21st century conventions, which it clearly doesn't. For that matter, for me to give the Mormon church the devotion and loyalty it demands requires it to behave consistently and significantly better than today's conventions. If it had any valid pretense of being what it claims, it must lead the way into a brighter future. Instead, it has to be constantly dragged along, some decades behind. It's caught up to the 20th century. In another couple of decades it will likely catch up to the 21st. Its leaders begrudgingly abandoned shocking racist policies and doctrines only in 1978. It pursued horrible practices towards gays and has been one of the biggest foes of their rights and basic acceptance. It ignores the clear realities of biology, including transgender and intersex people. It perpetuates patriarchal, misogynistic policies, doctrine, and culture. When it merely extends its existing policies into a different domain (temple baptisms), it becomes immediately obvious just how much it conflicts with current conventions.

I can forgive Joseph his sins, as I hope mine might also be forgiven, when he or I turn from them. I can forgive him not understanding the things we understand now. To some degree, I can even forgive modern Church leaders for their sins. They demonstrate that they are clearly products of their own times and weaknesses. But, they have would have to demonstrate much more for me to give them the honor they crave. Even if they were that, I couldn't give them the loyalty and devotion they demand.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 11:12 am But, they have would have to demonstrate much more for me to give them the honor they crave. Even if they were that, I couldn't give them the loyalty and devotion they demand.

For that matter, those things alone demonstrate they don't deserve the honor, loyalty, or devotion.

Whenever I consider this type of argument I wonder why the divine individuals at the very top get a pass. Observing people trying to twist the purported sayings of Jesus into modern life or attempting to defend God's own immorality as it appears in the scriptures is an interesting exercise.

But it's not limited to modern vs bygone ideas, as made clear by others pointing out that Joseph's practices were regarded as abhorent by some of his contemporaries.

Consider that in some circles it is apparently relatively common for modern men in their 30's to try and "court" teenagers as has been made noteworthy lately. And they defend it with gusto.

Consider your feelings, as most likely a resident of the western world, when you consider that some have no issue slaughtering and consuming canines, man's best friend. Would your reaction be all that different from an ancient Jew seeing a pagan consume pork?

Or how will 22nd century social conventions look on us for eating meat at all? Will future generations consider us uncivilized monsters because we enjoyed a once living and breathing cheeseburger. I think it likely.

How will they view the fact that we still operate religious schools or try to impose gendered ideologies on children?

Personally I'd hope humanity is able to employ a little empathy when judging one another while still being able to call out bs and harmful practices. There is a good chance we are all monsters to someone's worldview.

The question should not be if it was common behavior at the time to begin with. Was it kind loving behavior? Was it Christlike behavior?

Sure, we can point out that the legal age of marriage for girls was 14 (or whatever) , but the legal age of marriage was set up for teenagers who screwed around and ended up with a shotgun wedding. It was still considered bad behavior to have to get married that young. It was not set up that way in the US so that adult men could marry teenagers. That was considered shameful, because the man should have more decency than to want a teen girl. It was considered "unseemly" for an adult to even court a 14 year old. It was material for gossip and locking one's daughter in her room until the older man went away. The law to allow marriage that young was ONLY to prevent a child being born to a single mother, to prevent the child being a "bastard." It was for teenagers who were already having sex. Otherwise the parents would not give consent.

There was recognition that girls that young were at higher risk for pregnancy complications, death in childbirth, and being unable to nurse a baby if they both survived. There was still the recognition that a teenager was not emotionally fit for marriage at that age.

It was EXACTLY the same as it is today, if not worse for teen girls to get married, except for the problem of babies being born out of wedlock. Now we consider it making things worse to add marriage to the list of mistakes the kids are making. Having a baby out of wedlock is not the big deal it used to be. We have stripped punishing girls for life for getting pregnant and we have removed the shame from the child. No problem today if a pregnant YW decides to not marry and to keep her child. Daddy has put away the shotgun.

But Joseph Smith was not a teen aged boy who couldn't control himself. He was an adult who didn't think he HAD to control himself. And his worshipful followers allowed him to break all the social conventions of the time.

Saying it was different back then is just another way of saying it is no big deal to abuse a teen girl. Of course we still have people overlooking the rape accusations against the POTUS of a 13 year old. Those people want to pretend there is nothing to the accusation, that it is just lies made up by enemies out to destroy him. Sound familiar? The accusations against JS were written off as anti Mormon lies until they could no longer deny them, just exactly as people now are refusing to believe the "lies" told about the orange chimpanzee. Anita Hill was not taken seriously, only the last few months has there been real hope that powerful men will be held accountable.

And the fact that marriage was legal does not mean it was best for the teen bride. It was usually punishment for getting pregnant, for both the teen bride and the groom.

We don't consider girls "a few months shy of her 15 birthday" able to vote, buy a car, or even if she should get a hole punched in her ear, so why should we think she has the cognitive ability to decide if she is ready for marriage? The cognitive development has not gone down so that today's 14 year old is much more childish than they were back then. So unless it is OK to treat women as cows, then child brides were no more OK then than they are today. Woman married to a jerk was just as unhappy back then as today. The only thing that has changed, is that we have started to imagine women as real people instead of cows.

So, seriously, tell me one thing that has really changed? Well, besides that we have raised the legal age for marriage because those marriages of pregnant teens are a bad idea and daddy has put the shotgun away and now looks at the concep of if the girl wants to marry the guy. It is no more OK to abuse people then as now.

alas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:57 pm The question should not be if it was common behavior at the time to begin with. Was it kind loving behavior?

I agree although I think this is the crux of the problem. We cannot agree on what kind, loving behavior is. Or we make uncomfortable adjustments according to what we feel is "the greater good".

It always kind of amazes me when the parents of these girls Joseph married were on board, which seems to have happened often. They were of the belief that this was a good thing for their daughter and family.

Of course we see such ideological struggles all the time today. People who try to do their best with a transgendered child and make room for transition are accused by others of child abuse.

When my answer to people's inquiries about why I do not attend church is "to protect my children", I am met with incredulous stares and dropped jaws because that is the exact reason they go to church.

I'm not sure what crystallizes a moral view or what smashes it to bits but that seems to carry more weight than what is/was common and it definitely factors into how one forms what is kind and loving.

I think another aspect of this is that God vis-a-vis revelation to JS seems to dictate all sorts of minutiae, but doesn't think to tell him that some of the stuff he is doing is bat-shoot-crazy or flat out wrong? Can't have your cake and eat it too.

This is one of the big shelf breakers for me, either JS wasn't a true prophet or God is deceptive and creepy. I had to pick one.

Thoughtful wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:27 am If I'm recalling correctly, many ancient world leaders, including certain Romans, claimed to be born of virgins, directly sons of a God. They claimed a connection to the divine, and perpetuated atrocities nevertheless.

I think they perpetuated atrocities because they claimed a connection to the divine.

The problem is lack of accountability. My wife and I have been watching The Crown on Netflix. In episode 4 or 5, the new queen's grandmother expresses her view that a monarch is answerable only to God in how he or she leads the people. Well, if God mysteriously loves and hates the same people you do, when would he ever correct you? You could do anything you feel is right, whether it is or not, with impunity.

It reminded me very much of how the LDS church operates, going all the way back to Joseph Smith. If we're looking for things we can adequately pass judgment on because we have the same or similar moral sentiments, this is one. "Don't be a tyrant" is a sentiment we share.

Thoughtful wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:27 am LDS view David as fallen for his adultery and murder, but give brother Joseph a break already!

I'll be much more willing to withhold judgment when this church does the same for its members. The double standards infuriate me.

LaMachina wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:31 pm

alas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 18, 2017 1:57 pm The question should not be if it was common behavior at the time to begin with. Was it kind loving behavior?

I agree although I think this is the crux of the problem. We cannot agree on what kind, loving behavior is. Or we make uncomfortable adjustments according to what we feel is "the greater good".

It always kind of amazes me when the parents of these girls Joseph married were on board, which seems to have happened often. They were of the belief that this was a good thing for their daughter and family.

Of course we see such ideological struggles all the time today. People who try to do their best with a transgendered child and make room for transition are accused by others of child abuse.

When my answer to people's inquiries about why I do not attend church is "to protect my children", I am met with incredulous stares and dropped jaws because that is the exact reason they go to church.

I'm not sure what crystallizes a moral view or what smashes it to bits but that seems to carry more weight than what is/was common and it definitely factors into how one forms what is kind and loving.

I think we can apply the golden rule, and be pretty confident that we can come up with what is kind and loving behavior. Yes, you have to be able to put yourself in the other person's shoes and ask, if I was this slave, would I think it kind to sell my babies at five years old. Would I think it kind for my master to force us to work 18 hours a day? Would I think it kind for my master to not give us enough food, shelter, and clothing? I think it possible to ask, "If I was this girl, would I find it loving if some man wanted to have sex with me and didn't give a crap that I did not want it or that he didn't give a crap that my body was not mature enough to carry a child if I got pregnant." Joseph did not give a crap if Hellen Kimbal wanted sex with him or not, and he didn't give a crap if she was physically capable of giving birth to a healthy baby. He didn't give a crap about her feeling or her well being, therefore his behavior is not moral. I think that no matter the "standards of the day" that we can look at individual actions and see if they harm another person. That is not so hard. The old pagan rule of behavior was "do no harm". Joseph's actions did hurt the women he coerced into marriage and they did hurt his wife. So, they violate this early rule of morality, and the golden rule.