Ok…let me state up front that I am an active and believing (though non-traditional in some aspects) member of the church. I love and deeply respect the church, Joseph Smith, and the Book of Mormon, and believe that they all are inspired of God, and teach eternal truths.
That said, after studying LDS history, many of us have found that some of the historical facts within Mormonism are very different than what we were taught growing up, and in some instances, a bit hard to understand. Apologists (I believe) often do a wonderful job of doing solid research, and working hard to debunk misunderstandings and provide justifications, in defense of the faith. One of my issues w/ much of what I’ve read in FAIR/FARMS, however, is that the issues get clouded and obscured in too much detail (like on the recent Tal Bachman post).
I would like to propose a small project. I am going to list a series of “facts” or “issues” on this post, and I will invite Daniel Peterson, or any other apologist (preferably from FAIR) to help me fill out the columns. I am interested in a few things for each row/point:
- Do you (the apologists) concede the basic historical fact? If you don’t, please provide primary sources (where possible) to disprove.
- If you do concede the fact, how do you explain/justify it (if you can). If you don’t feel like you have a good justification, free to say, “I don’t understand” or “This is a bit of a problem”. Please limit this to 3 sentences max, and feel free to provide links to more detailed explanations.
- If any of you disagree w/ the apologist response, I’ll post your rebuttal (please also keep that to 3 sentences max).
I would love to go through this exercise for clarity’s sake. I will add new rows as these first rows get developed.
I also want to state categorically that I see NONE of these items that I’ve listed as disproving the church’s validity, or as being “smoking guns” (whatever the facts demonstrate). I also want to express openly that I offer this excercise up with sincerity…not trying to ensnare…but instead to reach a better understanding of our past, and how we might become more comfortable with it (trying to avoid the pitfalls of drilling too deep, and obfuscating the issues).
Please be kind/respectful of each other. I look forward to the exercise.
| Facts/Issue | Apologists: Concede the Facts/Statement? Yes/No |
Apologist Explanation | Rebuttal |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1) Joseph Smith and some of his family engaged in treasure digging using a stone w/ a hole in it, and the same stone Joseph used to dig for treasure was also used to create a decent portion of the Book of Mormon (via stone in the hat)
|
Yes
|
Joseph had 19th century sensibilities which included a belief in seer stones and other divining instruments. God worked within this context to use Joseph as an instrument to bring about the restoration, just as he spoke to previous generations in terms of their understanding. | |
|
2) There are no 1st hand accounts that Joseph actually used the golden plates in the translation process of the Book of Mormon that we have today. The 1st hand accounts that we do have indicate that the plates were either on a table covered up, or not in the room, during the creation of the book.
|
Yes
|
I think everyone acknowledges that the translation was done via the spirit and not "with the text" in any normal way. I’ve never read anything in any LDS context asserting otherwise. I’m surprised anyone even sees this as an issue since clearly Joseph couldn’t read the script. The issue isn’t whether Joseph read the book (since he *couldn’t* read it) but whether there is a fundamental relation between the produced text and the book. | |
|
3) Joseph Smith had somewhere between 27 and 33 wives
|
Yes
|
God commanded Joseph Smith to take plural wives. I don’t think many can assert this is too problematic – especially given that earlier polygamist, Abraham’s, own actions regarding his marital state. | |
|
4) Joseph Smith publicly denied he was practicing polygamy
|
Yes
|
I think everyone concedes that Joseph practiced polygamy in secret to avoid persecution for it and that this certainly involved lying about it. Given the nature of the persecution (and what the persecutors eventually did do) | |
|
5) Joseph Smith married some women who were married to other men (including active church members) at the time of his marriage to them (polyandry)
|
Yes
|
Everyone acknowledges polyandry although there are disputes about how many of the marriages were for time or instead for eternity and how many were intended to be practical marriages. | |
|
6) There is decent evidence to suggest that Joseph Smith had intimate relations with at least some of his plural wives
|
Yes
|
It would be silly to assert Joseph never slept with people he was married to. (After all the Utah polygamists did) One can argue that (as in Utah) some marriages weren’t practical ones and probably didn’t involve sex. But certainly many surely did – although there isn’t clear evidence on the issue. | |
|
7) Joseph’s polygamy, denial of polygamy, and destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor were important factors in his eventual martyrdom
|
Yes
|
The Expositor focused on two main complaints: (1) that Joseph Smith had too much power and (2) that he was secretly engaged in the immoral practice of polygamy. The Expositor was published to "expose" (hence the name) Joseph as a despotic tyrant, and it did so using some of the most defamatory language possible. Joseph (as mayor) and the city council declared it a public nusance and ordered its destruction. Some have argued that action was legal based on the city charter and the pre-14th Amendment interpretation of the 1st Amendment. But right or wrong, the destruction of that press enflamed the already-angry surrounding populace and lead directly to Joseph and Hyrum’s deaths. | |
|
8) Martin Harris claimed in the 1830s that the witnesses didn’t see the plates with their physical eyes, but instead with their spiritual eyes
|
Yes
|
Regarding seeing the Book of Mormon and the spiritual eyes bit, that was Martin Harris’ statement. But it doesn’t imply others didn’t. Nor did Harris feel this wasn’t something real. Further it isn’t clear this is the *only* experience of Harris. (Harris also said he sat with the plates on his knee for an hour and a half) | |
|
9) At least 3 blacks received the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s era
|
Yes
|
I’m not sure on the details about which blacks held the priesthood, but I believe that is right. I think the blacks and the priesthood issue probably involved some big mistakes and unfortunate probably wasn’t something Joseph clarified. | |
|
10) While the Book of Mormon tells of hundreds of thousands of soliders fighting battles with steel swords, shields and helmets, no one has ever found a sampling of any of these items in the Americas.
|
Yes
|
The issue of swords is a difficult one. There are the Aztec swords but that doesn’t explain the metal issue. The main apologetic answer is that absence of find doesn’t imply non-existence. The claim is that they would have rusted. I recognize many might find this one unsatisfying. (I think it one of the few of your list that someone might find legitimately troubling). Another writes, " None of the scriptures specify that large groups of people had metal swords. The few mentions of metal weapons are with small, very early, groups. The only mention of many people dying by sword does not say they the swords were metal. Thus any sharp edged lever would probably qualify, such as the weapons we do observe in ruins." |
|
|
11) For over a hundred years, many LDS apostles and prophets taught that American Indians were descendants of the Lamanites. DNA evidence now shows that modern American Indians are primarily descendants of Asians who crossed the Bering straight.
|
Yes
|
It is true "that some GAs have taught this and believed it, but but that ultimately is irrelevant. Mormons don’t believe in inerrancy of prophets, apostles, and GA’s. DNA evidence does confirm most if not many native americans are of asiatic descent. It is much, much more difficult to prove or disprove that a group of israelites could have come to Amereica, and interbred with the existing population over thousands of years. Their lineage still would include Israelite blood, but unique Israelite markers could easily have been lost if the founding group had a population of less than about 600 people. Careful reading of the Book of Mormon and inferences made regarding the sudden jumps in populations of Lamanites and Nephites strongly supports this view. In Joseph’s time, the idea of Israelite origin of all Native Americans was a wildly popular idea, and it seems evident that enthusiasm for this idea led to overstated and oversimplified claims about Native american and Polynesian origins, even though they may well have some ancestral lines that trace back to Lehi. Apologists (long before the DNA issue) asserted it was a local influx into a large pre-existing body of people. So not finding Indians as primarily of Israelite descent shouldn’t be unexpected. Rather it is what we expected to find way back in the 80′s. (editor’s note: this does not address the question about what LDS apostles and prophets taught, and it doesn’t address the fact that DNA tests on American indians seem to show DNA ties to Asia. It would be great if these things could be addressed as part of the response). |
|
Yeah! Another thread passes the 100 post mark. And absolutely no threadjacking involved.
John, may I suggest that if you at all want this to be a permanent feature of MS that you provide a permanent right-side link, so that it doesn’t get buried by other posts.
Dave S,
Relax man! I come in peace
.
The longer I view this thread the more I see this whole apologetics/ anti thing in the same light as a cheesy professional wrestling program. Both sides view the other as the evil bad guy. No attempts are made to really understand the other guy and nobody ever concedes anything. What’s the point of this forum then?
John Scherer -
I have no illusion of every changing the mind of any apologist on here. My goal is help the people sitting on the fence to think.
Not that my opinion has changed on anything during this thread, but I have always conceded that if one desires to give Joseph the benefit of the doubt then there are ways to look at the evidence that can save his reputation in all areas of controversy except one: the Book of Abraham.
I do not see apologists as evil, but I do see some of them, as well as some anti’s, as extraordinarily mean spirited. I feel that I do understand where the apologists are coming from; I used to be on their side and familiar with their publications.
“The longer I view this thread the more I see this whole apologetics/ anti thing in the same light as a cheesy professional wrestling program. Both sides view the other as the evil bad guy. No attempts are made to really understand the other guy and nobody ever concedes anything. What’s the point of this forum then?”
excellent point and question.
i dont expect to ever change the apologists either. nor do i expect they will ever stop apologizing and i do not expect the church to change.
what i would like to see happen as a result of shared dialogue is probably overly optimistic, admittedly. i would like to see the following:
-some acknowledgment by the apologists and active members that the transition away from being an active LDS member to disengagement is difficult, and emotional.
-some acknowledgment by the apologists and active members that those that do not agree with them are neither slothful, nor idiotic, nor ignorant.
-increased realization by those that struggle with the lds doctrine and culture that they are not alone, they are not crazy, they are not evil and that there is not a disappointed god sitting on the edge of the universe waiting to hurl lightening bolts and thunder at them.
-stronger families and extended families by the greater awareness of these issues and the personal considerations many members are making to satisfy believing active members in their family.
-honesty and clarity for children and converts. this one is clearly not possible to affect here or on any other board. but its still my wish that children were not taught in a way that would create shock and awe when they finally found the real truth in the journals mormon whatever it is that dan said is standard reading material.
Mayan wrote:
I’m not an apologist (don’t really have the academic qualifications) but, I consider myself an “active” LDS member. So, my responses reflect only this active LDS member’s experience. I will acknowledge this (based on your assertion that it is so); however, I will also observe that when I left the Church for well over 10 years, the transition was not difficult and/or emotional for me in any way, shape, or form. I just left (and I left it alone). That said, I realize everyone is different and will have different experiences, which is why I will acknowldge your experience. Are you willing to acknowledge mine?
So acknowledged–but I really don’t think anyone is really making that claim, Mayan. (No, I don’t believe Bro. Peterson did either–despite your take on his comments).
So acknowledged. But the last part of your sentence here (IMO) is hyperbole (and not really helpful to any meaningful discussion).
I’ll be honest–I don’t really know what this means. From personal experience I can say I never experienced the need for any special consideration by anyone in my family or friends when I was outside the Church. Strong families come from unconditional love for each other. It has nothing to do with what some person’s perception is about what the Church teaches or doesn’t teach, etc. etc.
Again, I’m not sure what you mean here. I was taught as were you all the things you reference here on this and other boards. My experience is profoundly different from yours. There was no shock and awe. And, I don’t really accept your spin on the experience–though you’re certainly entitiled to your point of view. Just as I, and other active LDS are entitled to ours, and entitled to teach our own children and families as we see fit. You, and others are just as entitled to teach your own children as you see fit. So, I guess I don’t agree everyone needs to conform to how YOU or others want to teach my children or my family. Just as I am not entitled to impose my views on how you should teach yours.
ME,
I’m no apologist, but I can offer the following as an active convert.
-some acknowledgment by the apologists and active members that the transition away from being an active LDS member to disengagement is difficult, and emotional. I acknowlege this as I have seen the pain this causes, especially considering the additional pain brought from prideful members who view this as a blow to their own testimony.
-some acknowledgment by the apologists and active members that those that do not agree with them are neither slothful, nor idiotic, nor ignorant. I acknowlege this. However, most of my family isn’t LDS. I think this attitude is evident in some and is ridiculous( See my wrestling comment
.
-increased realization by those that struggle with the lds doctrine and culture that they are not alone, they are not crazy, they are not evil and that there is not a disappointed god sitting on the edge of the universe waiting to hurl lightening bolts and thunder at them. I consider this as a goal as well whenever my calling requires I contact disaffected members. I hope you are successful in this.
-stronger families and extended families by the greater awareness of these issues and the personal considerations many members are making to satisfy believing active members in their family. Agreed that this should happen both ways. I know many members who also make these considerations for their non-believing children and other family. Keep this quiet, but I spent last sunday at the beach with my in laws and took the day off from church. All in name of family relationships
.
-honesty and clarity for children and converts. this one is clearly not possible to affect here or on any other board. but its still my wish that children were not taught in a way that would create shock and awe when they finally found the real truth in the journals mormon whatever it is that dan said is standard reading material. I converted three years ago and feel I was given way more honesty and clarity from the LDS than from the anti’s that my previous church sent into my home to apparetly firghten my children
. It is my goal to be completely honest in raising my children LDS and think I’m doing well thusfar, so good luck.
P.S. I probably butchered the italicizing, please bear with me.
John,
Why do you and the others feel you need to preface all your research and work by stating that you are faithful believers and these things shouldn’t be construed as a smoking gun? Do you fear being exed? This isn’t to poke fun…but genuine concern.
To stay a member of the church would require me to have MORE faith in Joseph Smith than in Jesus Christ. Where in the bible does the Lord condone polyandry? (women already married) How about how he married them…in secret without husbands permission!
Secrets and lies are the tools of satan not God. But Joseph smith used these tools well and when he was caught he sought to destroy the printing press which was publishing the TRUTH.
Why does the church teach us to stay way from tarot cards and other divinations–because they are satans tool—but for joseph smith they were tools of God?
What about plagarism of Temple Ordinances?
The Book of Mormon itself is problematic. Historicity, book of hebrews, huge chunk is from bible…
Where in the bible are prophets chosen just because that outlived another man?
Many questions…
yeah john, you massacred the quoting and formatting. recoginise, repair and abandon wordpress my friend.
Thanks for your comments.
Guy,
some of my brothers have left the church. some left in their youth and another after a temple marriage. they didnt blink twice. they couldnt give two [somethings] about the church. so, agreed, its not the same for everyone.
its nice of you to stick up for peterson/midgley. however, they could not be more clear or direct in their comments. not knowing about the items in dehlin’s grid is, in their opinion as expressed in this blog, the result of ignorance and slothfulness. true, it was another commenter that added the intellectually diminished camp which has not been refuted in the slightest.
guy, you didnt understand the lightning comments? does this help:
I see a little silhouetto of a man,
Scaramouche,scaramouche will you do the fandango-
Thunderbolt and lightning-very very frightening me-
Galileo,galileo,
Galileo galileo
Galileo figaro-magnifico-
But Im just a poor boy and nobody loves me-
Hes just a poor boy from a poor family-
Spare him his life from this monstrosity-
Easy come easy go-,will you let me go-
Bismillah! no-,we will not let you go-let him go-
Bismillah! we will not let you go-let him go
Bismillah! we will not let you go-let me go
Will not let you go-let me go
Will not let you go let me go
No,no,no,no,no,no,no-
Mama mia,mama mia,mama mia let me go-
Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me,for me,for me-
That should clear it all up for you. but if not, it goes like this, anecdotally: “oh mayan, we love you so much, and we want you to know that we will love you, but also, you have turned your life over to satan and we fear the consequences on your children for doing that. we love you. now go back to church right this minute.”
or, here is another: “oh molly, we are so sorry your husband and our son has succombed to satan and stopped believing in the book of mormon. if you choose to leave him because of this, we will help you. we love you and understand that you would leave him, and take the children, so they would have the spirit and the priesthood in their home.”
oh. fyi. those stories are not fiction in the slightest, as you know.
and as for the shock and awe that were not your experience, and that you consider to be spin. THAT, is exactly my point. too many folks dont believe it exists – but it does. we can debate the reasons for it and whether its the fault of the shocker or the awed, but, there is not debating guy, IT HAPPENS. and i wish more people understood that it happens, and showed sympathy rather than dismissing it as “[not] the real life, [is this] just fantasy”.
Mayan,
As I’ve said on another blog and another thread: You and I are unlikely to agree, ever, on very much regarding the Church. This I continue to believe.
Regardless–I wish you well, and hope for nothing but God’s blessings to be with you and your family as you trod down life’s path.
“Strong families come from unconditional love for each other.” Careful, Guy, you are straying toward the outer perimeter of the Lord’s doctrinal campsite here. Elder Nelson says “unconditional love” is a false doctrine. The true church teaches that God’s love is conditional and, by extension, parents should emulate God so their love also should be conditional. So, methinks you should repent of this notion of unconditional love and embrace LDS orthodoxy.
Equality,
I wish only the best in God’s blessings for you too, and your family as you trod the paths you have chosen.
Thanks, Guy. This is turning into a love fest. May the god or goddess of your choice bless you and yours as well.
Equality you are intentionally misrepresenting his point and playing on an equivocation of the term. (i.e. switching from the sense where God’s love definitely is unequivocal to the sense where it isn’t) It behooves you if you are going to critique apologists for what you see as deceptive to not be deceptive yourself.
Honestly, the comments here starts to read more like the FAIR forums every day.
John,
What we have here is a failure to communicate.
There are no simple apologetic answers to the warts that cover mormon history. It’s like buying a car that you know was totaled in a head on collision, then rebuilt and now the used car sales man is trying to answer your question of “Was this car totaled?”
The bell of mormon history does not ring when struck with the hammer of investigation. It merely goes “thud”.
Take for polygamy for example. Some will tell you it was a commandment from god, and he was FORCED by god to disobey the 1833 Illinois anti-bigamy law, lie to his wife, the public, and the general body of his followers and even his friends.
How on earth can you get a simple answer from the question, “Did Joseph Smith cheat on his wife, and lie about it?”, from a mormon apologist whose entire work is to defend the sale of the totaled car at all costs?
There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.
Some things that are true are not very useful.
Porter, it seems like this is true of Christianity in general. Take Abraham. The question is merely how recent the history one deals with is. If one is going to raise these sorts of questions one will find they are there with any religious system.
Now I don’t mean this in the sense of saying “we’re no worse than those other guys” as a kind of justification. Far from it. Rather (as the figure of Abraham demonstrates) religion, especially Christian and Jewish religion, is about faith. There has to be that challenge. If you demand from religion no challenges, that it be as easy to believe as what is firmly established in science, with no work on the individual’s part then you’ll always be disappointed.
I think that Joseph Smith and the early Saints were challenged by God. And I think individuals as they read the history will be challenged as well. There are two ways to react to that challenge. One can turn to God, who will give partial answers and demand an exercise of faith, or one can simply reject it all.
Contrary to what some have asserted, I think all apologists recognize that this is a difficult challenge and that some will simply reject it. I think some will reject it and then still accept Christianity or an other religion which to me ultimately ends up being problematic. (I’ll avoid stronger terms) I think what makes Mormonism so interesting is that the fact it has the divine within history so recently is that it forces this conversation. It forces us to grapple with issues that perhaps religions with a more distant encounter with the problematic divine don’t. (Although some do – I think Catholics, for instance, force a similar choice – although perhaps in a slightly different fashion from Mormons)
What I see critics demanding of apologists is that they make religion easy. Not necessarily in the performance, but in the belief. But religion is not easy to believe and should never be. So what the critics are demanding is precisely what religion denies.
So feel free to make the cynical asides. But I strongly feel there is something fundamental in life that you are missing. It is very easy to believe in things after scientists struggle to make it manifest. It is much harder to grapple with reality directly and make it manifest yourself.
To add, all apologists I’ve read constantly say the same thing. They can’t prove the gospel. They always point to the spirit and a testimony. All they can do is try to show how one can rationally believe. If you demand more than that from the apologist you’re simply missing what the discussion is about.
Some thoughts -
First, apologists generally respond to something – and just about anything can be seen as apologetic. There has been an ongoing scholarly discussion, for example, on the two views of King David as revealed in the Old Testament. One side sees the OT account as being somewhat historically accurate. The other side sees it as being apologetic. These two views are contradictory (and only fairly recently have there been any real attempts to harmonize them). On the one side we have the glowing example of a man (with a few faults – Bathsheba, the census, etc.) On the other hand, we have a murderous schemer. The text seems to go out of its way to disassociate David from the deaths of Abner and Ishbaal, from which he benefited – is this because David had no involvement and the author wanted to make it clear, or is it a response to a prevalent public belief that he was involved (and the conclusion is that based on the strenous effort in the apology, he probably was involved).
Apologetics is often unsatisfying. In a way, apologists favor things like systematic theology (which is difficult to have in Mormonism). They like to find ways to include everything, they like to elimante conflict, increase harmony. And the responses are often unsatisfying in every way – because the issue isn’t to create something satisfying. Often in internet dicsussions, an apologist will invoke multiple arguments for his point of view – often oblivious to the fact that these arguments are mutually exclusive. (This is true of the pro-mormon as well as the anti-mormon – after all, Vogel’s view of Joseph Smith’s authorship really isn’t compatible with the Spaulding related theories).
I am viewed as something of an apologist (at least thats the label I get a lot). I would rather see myself as a theologian. My views are not always popular, but they are often (at least I hope they are) provocative. And I try to avoid simply putting up an argument to “win” the debate.
But apologists come from both sides of the fence. Take the comment above about “spiritual eyes”. Palmer (who I know you like John), talks a lot about the idea that the “eyes of our understanding” is equivalent to “second sight”. It is an apologetic argument. If we take the time (and I have) to go back through early 19th century and late 18th century literature, we get the phrase “eyes of our understanding” used quite a bit (it is, after all, Biblical), and some of the other phrases used by early LDS – and they are not used in a way which is compatible with Palmer’s notion of “second sight”. So Palmer’s argument hinges around this idea that all of these LDS were part of a community within the community – they all shared a common magic world view. And then, once we have defined this community, we can redefine their language, making it different from the larger community in which this small group existed. But there isn’t any evidence for this, and Palmer really doesn’t justify how he decides who is in and who is out. But it does suit the purposes of the argument, and so it is apologetic in nature.
Much like the LDS community using Jacob 2:30 to defend polygamy. It was never invoked until quite some time after the practice was started – and only after charges were made in print that claimed that the Book of Mormon called polygamy an abomination. The Book of Mormon text supports the practice of polygamy only in the most general sense – and never directly, and the defenses which have been made (the apologies) have created a meaning for the BoM text which will persist, and which (at least in my studied opinion) has nothing to do with the intentions of the author. In fact, it seems likely that Jacob, who is trying to dismantle the practice, would be somewhat dismayed to see it used to defend it.
Now, let me admit also that I get a fair share of grief over the idea that I like to obscure the issue, to cloud it, to introduce a great deal of meaningless discussion to hide the real problem. My objective is to understand the issues as best I can (of course, I also have spent a great deal of time thinking about how I think). I view myself as a postmodernist. I tend to view interpretation as being more about difference. We know better what something doesn’t mean than what it does.
And of course, 3 to 5 sentances is rather useless – except to create an easy target (apologetics does this a lot quite frankly). Because 3 to 5 sentances cannot really address any of these issues.
One of my favorite topics is the horse in the Book of Mormon. (But this is applicable to the concept of swords that you bring up above). A discussion of what the horse always stems from a previously assumed position of 19th century translation of an ancient text or 19th century authorship. And if a translation, we have to talk about what that means – what sort of a translation is it, how much of the translator is included, what can be said about the original source from the translation, and how do we distinguish from issues in the text related to the translation as opposed to issues which may have existed in the source. And so on. And of course we cloud the issue. But the reality is, despite what Marco Polo wrote, we know that he encountered a rhinoceros in Java and not a unicorn (as he calls it). Even though his text says unicorn, and is always translated as unicorn (when translated into English) and so on. So, we find the known real world isn’t reducible to the same sorts of simple answers we want either.
Having said all of that, let me comment on a few of your statements John, starting with number 3:
Joseph Smith publicly denied he was practicing polygamy
Clinton clarified his position by suggesting that it depends on the definition of the word “is” (an interesting point really, because syntactically, the notion of being comes in three distinct meanings which are generally merged into one or two distinct words in most languages – but in different groupings). When we suggest that Joseph Smith was denying his polygamy, are we suggesting that he believed that he was engaged in the polygamy that he was denying? Or did he mean something else by polygamy, perhaps referring to the status of state recognized marriages to multiple women? Or even to common law marriage?
This isn’t to suggest that he wasn’t attempting to mislead, but rather, as Clinton, that perhaps he was splitting hairs with his language – maybe even as a way of dealing with his own qualms of lying.
Part of the issue with your statement (2) is the idea of the Anthon transcript. No matter whether or not Joseph was looking at the Gold Plates as he translated it, he prepared a translation of some specific characters allegedly from off of the gold plates, and presented a translation as specifically being a translation of these characters. So for us to say that the plates were not used is to belie the fact that they were presented as being intimately connected. Further, the whole Anthon episode must be dealt with when dealing with this issue. We cannot simply suggest that these characters were not copied directly from the plates but were reproduced by Joseph with his face buried in the hat. So while the plates were not apprently in direct use for most of the translation, I don’t think this can be said for all of it with any degree of certainty.
For number 7, the answer is yes. But the real question is were they any more of an issue than Joseph’s publication of the Book of Mormon, than Joseph’s starting a new faith, than Joseph’s declaration of political intentions, and so on. The issue being was the two you bring up any more significant than any number of other factors, because this would seem to be the gist of your question.
For number 8, I can’t help but think, in your comments, that you have been influenced by Palmer’s unwarranted assertion that this is a reference to second sight.
In simply answering these issues (and answers been filled in), it leaves me wondering about these other points. Do we, in simply answering the issue come across as accepting your perspective of the “problem”? Instead, I would rather focus on the questions before I want explore responses. Inevitably we are going to learn a lot about ourselves in the process.
Ben
I haven’t had a chance to read all of the posts on this thread so please excuse if this comment has already been made.
I think there are a few mistaken assumptions with the request and expectation for “the apologists” to give a single, simple response:
1. “Apologists” do not have homogenous views of the same issue. Yes, hard to believe but it is true.
2. As far as I understand, it is not FAIR’s mission to provide content for other websites, provide “on demand” responses, etc. IIUC, FAIRs mission has something to do with providing a variety of apologetic responses to critical questions on *their* web site, in addition to publishing a limited amount of documents, and putting on their annual conference.
3. FAIR isn’t a monolithic entity. It is a loose association of many volunteers that work on FAIR efforts and priorities (e.g., the wiki and getting their online articles translated on non-English FAIR sites) on an ad lib basis when they have time. If someone that is associated with FAIR decides to respond – fine – but they will be doing so representing only themselves and not FAIR.
John, I hope that may provide some understanding as to the lack of an “official” FAIR response here . I hope you see that not all apologist hold a single position on any particular issue. You will see a range of perspectives. Additionally, usually one will not be able to provide a “simple” question to a complex issue (even tho it may be presented in a simple manner). For these reasons, you may have unrealistic expectations of FAIR, FARMS, and apologists in replying to this request (and others) that you may have.
[Comment by Devin — August 1, 2006 :] “I appreciate what you are doing here. I’m an active member that finds it incredibly tedious to slog through FAIR’s typical responses to these issues and I feel that in the process that the answers that they provided get lost in reams of superfluous rhetoric . . .”
Devin,
It seems to me by your comments above that you may be confusing “FAIR” with the message board that is *hosted* by FAIR – but that does not necessarily represent FAIR positions.
It seems to me by your comments above that you may be confusing “FAIR” with the message board that is *hosted* by FAIR – but that does not necessarily represent FAIR positions.
As my mother said when Pete Rose was kicked out of baseball: “When you run with skunks, you end up smelling.”
Gee, that’s nice about your mom, Ann, but it totally misses the point of Devin’s post and my reply.
Devin, please refer to the FAIR topical guide if you’d like to read apologetic essays without the “noise.”
See: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/
Regarding LDS polyandry, I want to know if in the existing marriages Smith or other men joined, if the women were barren, had sickly children or thier 1st husbands were away on missions, etc? In short was this an attempt to maximize successful reproduction? That would seem consistant with the practical aspects of polygamy and akin to a woman going to a sperm bank today or a woman choosing different men to father and raise children (stud and sap). Or did Smith in effect steal wives solely out of lust?
Steve, while it definitely has some biases and places where there are disagreement over interpretations and sometimes facts, Compton’s In Sacred Loneliness does a good job going through the polyandrous relationships. I don’t think one could argue in the least it was about reproduction. I think Compton’s theory of dynastic marriages makes a lot of sense. But I think ultimately one can’t really say.
John, this kind of table needs to be provided on a Mormon wiki with a sort of word limit for every answer. This would be immensely helpful to both Mormons and non-Mormons.