21st century social conventions

[Dravin]

Apologists love to talk about how we cannot judge people in the past using our standards of today.

The amusing thing is this is a moral relativistic argument. If they conceding moral relativism is valid they enter into territory that is very dangerous for a TBM. It puts them at odds with GA quotes condemning moral relativism, once you crack the door you unleash a flood and it becomes problematic to say tut-tut the tattooed girl at the mall (you can't just apply you standards carte blanche to condemn her but have you consider her circumstances), and probably more importantly it undermines the moral authority and claims of the very people they're trying to shield from criticism. If Joseph Smith, Brigham Young or whomever they're trying to defend because of time and distance can't be judged by today's standards what relevance do their moral teachings have to me today given they were made in and to such an alien moral landscape? You can't just assume relevance, you have to justify it.

Edit: Fair warning, I responded before readings so someone may have made this point already and I'm just retreading ground.

[Emower]

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?

Definitely an insult in my book.

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 asked someone who detested Roy Moore but continues to revere Joseph what would happen if Roy came out an told people that God had told him to do it. Would that then make it ok or somehow more palatable? Crickets.

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 have no doubt either. I suppose people will be judged, if one believes in a judgement, according to what they believed and thought was right. I guess I am just confused about why I cant judge a guy according to what I think is right, when I am required to align my life in harmony with what that guy thought was right. It seems unhealthy to me and I have a hard time understanding why others do not agree. I was hoping that someone here did not agree and we could have a real throw down.

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.

He was a weak thing though. And through weak things God will make great things. Or whatever. Doesnt he fit that bill? So not only can we not judge him according to our standards, our standards of conduct just segue him right into that part of our canon. Swoosh.

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

We do view him as fallen, but we still revere him and accept his contribution to scripture, his example in other places, and his relationship with God. And his remorse over what he did.

[Emower]

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.

Ahh, ok, you are the guy I want to have the throw down with.

I agree that all people should have forgiveness in the next life. I make no exception to that rule. Thus, in that way I will give Brother Joseph a break. But, I disagree that his conduct and misdeeds is fundamentally insignificant to how we are expected to live our life today. So much of today's church is based on his integrity. Here are three things that we need to take his word for it when we orient our life around the current church:

• The First Vision
• That he was really translating (i.e. were words really appearing on the stone)
• that he was receiving revelation from God which is now found in the D&C

Those three things encompass a lot of stuff. We literally just have to take his word for it that they happened as he said it happened. This places a lot of focus on his character right? Now, if I am to orient my life around a man, why wouldn't I want him to reflect my ideals, which are 21st century ideals? And if he doesn't reflect those ideals, why can that not be be a fundamental issue? How does it not matter that he was quick to lie about things, when we are taking his word for other things? How does it not matter that a big part of the current church focuses around sexual purity and monogamy, and Joseph was neither?

Edit:
If the church wants to go ahead and disavow Joseph Smith and all that crap, and say hey, just focus on the 21st century church for your instruction, fine. But they dont, and they wont, which makes it a fundamental issue does it not?

[Rob4Hope]

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.

ALAS, I agree with you above TOTALLY. I think the justification used back then was they considered it for the "higher good"--something I STRONGLY disagree with.

When I was a little child, I couldn't understand why my mother let that doctor stick that needle in my bum and squirt me with stuff in there. IT HURT! She did it BECAUSE she loved me, and it was for the greater good--or so I was taught. Now as an adult I understand that. Spiritually I consider myself older, but I do NOT justify the "higher good" idea now. Its a load of rot!

But those who adopt this idea to justify Joseph jump on the justification roller-coaster.

Parents sacrificed their daughters to Joseph because it ensured, according to what Joseph said, the eternal life of the family. So what if the girl had to have sex when she didn't want to, had to have babies (which Joseph apparently didn't have?) when she wasn't capable of, etc. It was for the GREATER GOOD.

That is where the morality issue is crossed in my mind. And, the post above you ALAS talks about accountability. From that early perspective, the only accountability the people basically believed Joseph had was to God. Since God didn't make any corrections (like striking the man down), then he must have had God's blessing to do what he did.

It took a bullet. How sad--the answer of THAT time was a bullet. No matter you had people like William Law printing TRUTHS about the guy....it still took a bullet. And from that, the church basically diafied the man and the pattern repeats.

[Rob4Hope]

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

One of the arguments about David being fallen was that his bones were still around after Jesus resurrected. Am I right about that?...didn't JFS say something about that? (correct me if I'm wrong...I can take the correction in stride).

Anyway, if that is the case--David fallen and his bones being around supposedly--then it would be hilariously interesting to dig up old JS and HS bones and see if they are still there! There are NDE people who have sworn that both are resurrected. Why?...cuz they have progressed far enough along they needed to take up their bodies.

Wait!....isn't JS hair clipping still in the church museum? Oh, and BY as well?

Guess they are not resurrected yet, cuz "not one hair will be lost"...rigth?....maybe they were bad like David and had many wives and concubines?...OOPs. sorry. I got personal there....

[Jeffret]

Ahh, ok, you are the guy I want to have the throw down with.

Sorry, I'm unlikely to satisfy that desire for you. I suspect I agree with you too much for that to happen.

I agree that all people should have forgiveness in the next life. I make no exception to that rule. Thus, in that way I will give Brother Joseph a break.

I'm not talking about the next life. I'm pretty skeptical it exists. Even if it does, it's unknowable and I'm not likely to accept someone else's word on it, so it's pretty pointless to concern myself with it.

You may have missed my qualifier, though. I said, "I can forgive Joseph his sins, as I hope mine might also be forgiven, when he or I turn from them." I don't know that Joseph turned from his sins. Maybe he might have turned from them if he had lived longer.

Mostly, though, I'm not interested in setting myself up as judge for Joseph. It's not worth my energy. Sure, he did lots of things wrong, but so did lots of other historical people. From a historical perspective it's interesting, but as an expenditure of personal energy, it doesn't gain me much.

But, I disagree that his conduct and misdeeds is fundamentally insignificant to how we are expected to live our life today.

I assure you Joseph's conduct and misdeeds are quite insignificant in how I expect to live my life.

So much of today's church is based on his integrity. Here are three things that we need to take his word for it when we orient our life around the current church:

• The First Vision
• That he was really translating (i.e. were words really appearing on the stone)
• that he was receiving revelation from God which is now found in the D&C

Quite separately from Joseph's conduct and misdeeds, those things clearly didn't happen in the literal, simplistic way the modern church claims they did. It's a little unclear or inconsistent what Joseph actually claimed on some of those, but the modern church's narrative on them is clearly wrong.

Those three things encompass a lot of stuff. We literally just have to take his word for it that they happened as he said it happened.

Let's stop right there. How did Joseph say it it happened? We would need to establish that first. In the case of the First Vision, we have several different accounts, which don't exactly cohere. The only thing that's really clear is that Joseph claimed to have had a spiritual experience that mightily affected his life. I'm inclined to accept that claim, as it's not particularly unusual. All the rest of it is subject to later interpretation, by Joseph or others.

I'm unclear on just what Joseph said about how he translated, other than that it was by the power and gift of god. Or his muse. Or something like that. From what I know about writing in general, and automatic writing specifically, I think the description that the words appeared in the mind of the author is not particularly unusual.

This places a lot of focus on his character right? Now, if I am to orient my life around a man, why wouldn't I want him to reflect my ideals, which are 21st century ideals? And if he doesn't reflect those ideals, why can that not be be a fundamental issue? How does it not matter that he was quick to lie about things, when we are taking his word for other things? How does it not matter that a big part of the current church focuses around sexual purity and monogamy, and Joseph was neither?

Oh, heavens, what a silly idea! Orient my life around a man? Why would I do that? (Though admittedly, I've oriented my life around a woman, but that's the sort of thing monogamous straight men tend to do.) It would take at least a major god, not even a minor one, for me to want to orient my life around. It would have to be a god worth worshiping, certainly not one that demands my worship.

Besides, is it really possible to orient your life around Joseph as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? It seems that the Church holds up a distorted idolatrous image of Joseph, but long ago abandoned Joseph's ideas and practices. In some significant ways, it is more Brigham's church than Joseph's, but it's really mostly the modern institutional church. And as far as I'm concerned, it's clearly got flaws and isn't worth orienting my life around.

If the church wants to go ahead and disavow Joseph Smith and all that crap, and say hey, just focus on the 21st century church for your instruction, fine. But they dont, and they wont, which makes it a fundamental issue does it not?

While I agree that's a valid criticism of the modern church, there is plenty more to criticize them about. From my perspective that's more a symptom of their fundamental flaws than the fundamental flaw itself.

[Emower]

I assure you Joseph's conduct and misdeeds are quite insignificant in how I expect to live my life.

Sure, it may be insignificant in how you expect to live your life, but it is not insignificant in how other people expect you to live your life, which is what I am trying to get at. If other people expect me to live a certain way, I feel that I should have the ability to judge, according to my current standards, all the aspects of those expectations. I feel like Joseph's character is one of those aspects.

Let's stop right there. How did Joseph say it it happened? We would need to establish that first. In the case of the First Vision, we have several different accounts, which don't exactly cohere. The only thing that's really clear is that Joseph claimed to have had a spiritual experience that mightily affected his life. I'm inclined to accept that claim, as it's not particularly unusual. All the rest of it is subject to later interpretation, by Joseph or others.

What I am saying is regardless of the interpretation, he said something happened. Also, regardless of the interpretation he said some things didn't happen that we now know did. The interpretation doesn't change the fact that he lied about some things, which calls into question others does it not? Why does interpretation change the fact that he was dishonest, and why cant I use that information/judgement in concert with my current worldview?

Oh, heavens, what a silly idea! Orient my life around a man? Why would I do that? (Though admittedly, I've oriented my life around a woman, but that's the sort of thing monogamous straight men tend to do.) It would take at least a major god, not even a minor one, for me to want to orient my life around. It would have to be a god worth worshiping, certainly not one that demands my worship.

Lets assume for the sake of this discussion that a man is important enough to a group of people that they will orient their lives around him and what he taught and that the God who asks them to do it is a Major one.

Besides, is it really possible to orient your life around Joseph as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? It seems that the Church holds up a distorted idolatrous image of Joseph, but long ago abandoned Joseph's ideas and practices.

Nah, I'm going to disagree with this one. We haven't abandoned very many teaching of Joseph. We haven't abandoned Polygamy, regardless of what Hinkley said on 60 minutes. We haven't abandoned polytheism regardless of what Hinkley said either. The best we do is not talk much about things Joseph taught.

[lostinmiddlemormonism]

Wait a minute...

We shouldn't judge past leaders because they were following social norms of 200 years ago...(by implication that means they weren't following God).

We can't judge today's leaders ecause they aren't subject to social norms if our day (lgbtqia issues), because they are following God.

Must be damn nice to have your cake and eat it too.

Lost

[Jeffret]

Sure, it may be insignificant in how you expect to live your life, but it is not insignificant in how other people expect you to live your life, which is what I am trying to get at. If other people expect me to live a certain way, I feel that I should have the ability to judge, according to my current standards, all the aspects of those expectations. I feel like Joseph's character is one of those aspects.

So many people -- so many different expectations. One of my friends once expressed to me that he was so happy when I left Mormonism. But, he's an evangelical and he expected me to live according to evangelical expectations and to reject evolution. That didn't happen either so he wasn't really happy. I've failed to live up to lots of different expectations that lots of different people have had for me.

Bear in mind that if judging Joseph's character helps you figure out how to live your life, I have no disputation against that. I'm just trying to express an alternative view. I'm not terribly concerned about Joseph's character and never really have been. I'm more concerned with Monson's character. Or Oaks. Or Bednar. And I find those rather lacking. Though I'm really not that concerned with their character, either.

What I am saying is regardless of the interpretation, he said something happened. Also, regardless of the interpretation he said some things didn't happen that we now know did. The interpretation doesn't change the fact that he lied about some things, which calls into question others does it not? Why does interpretation change the fact that he was dishonest, and why cant I use that information/judgement in concert with my current worldview?

I'm getting lost on which things we fundamentally know, which things he said happened, which things he said happened that we know didn't happen, and which things he lied about. As I said, I'm really only reasonably confident about one thing, that Joseph had what he interpreted as a significant spiritual experience. Other than that, I'm not really sure which things are reliable. If we want to go over the details, could you please help me get a little more specific?

When I was writing up my earlier comments, I recognized that I have been somewhat influenced in my approach by the writings of Bishop John Shelby Spong. He wrote about a similar approach to historical and common spiritual experiences in Christianity and in general, though he made it clear he no longer believed in the claims literally.

Lets assume for the sake of this discussion that a man is important enough to a group of people that they will orient their lives around him and what he taught and that the God who asks them to do it is a Major one.

If they want to do it, there's little I can do to dissuade them from it. There are lots of different men that have made similar claims. And occasionally a woman. I'm not likely to orient my life around any of them. From a sociological perspective, it can be kind of interesting.

Some of this, not all but some, is a little bit like the saying from some atheists, "You reject 2,999 gods and accept one. I'm not much different. I only reject one more." Only, substitute in something about expectations for how I live my life or which historical or contemporary figure I orient my life around.

Besides, is it really possible to orient your life around Joseph as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? It seems that the Church holds up a distorted idolatrous image of Joseph, but long ago abandoned Joseph's ideas and practices.

Nah, I'm going to disagree with this one. We haven't abandoned very many teaching of Joseph. We haven't abandoned Polygamy, regardless of what Hinkley said on 60 minutes. We haven't abandoned polytheism regardless of what Hinkley said either. The best we do is not talk much about things Joseph taught.

I'm quite convinced that were he born these days, Joseph would be excommunicated from the church that proclaims its reverence for him. Joseph was a free-wheeling, eclectic, charismatic, revelatory individual. He didn't stand still. He certainly didn't base his life around established precedent and institutional demands. More like a Denver Snuffer, but much more so. Maybe more like a Warren Jeffs. The modern church has abandoned Joseph's expansive, dynamic teachings for life and the eternities contained in Lectures on Faith, the King Follett Discourse, and many others, reducing them to a mere, "I don't know that we teach that." His grand visions of eternity have been reduced to a simple child's toy called "the Plan of Salvation". Even the Christology that Joseph propounds in the BoM has been abandoned. The modern church hasn't seen a revelation in decades, or possibly more than a century.

(I'm certainly not saying by any of that that Joseph is worth following, just that Joseph's life, teachings, and church were far different from the modern church.)

[moksha]

I guess I am just confused about why I cant judge a guy according to what I think is right, when I am required to align my life in harmony with what that guy thought was right. It seems unhealthy to me and I have a hard time understanding why others do not agree. I was hoping that someone here did not agree and we could have a real throw down.

If you were to describe a similar historical incidence to a Chapel Mormon not versed in the wily ways of apologetics to give their opinion, they would probably say the guy was a scumbag. If you told them Joseph Smith did the same thing, they would become defensive and quit listening to you. The fact of the matter is that Joseph's life does not jive with current social mores.

Not sure if any current LDS apologists have exerted the German philosophical claim of the Ubermensch, that some men such as Joseph are beyond ordinary ethics and morality because of their superior nature and destiny - unless having higher keys is a code substitution for this Nietzschian term.

[Jeffret]

Besides, is it really possible to orient your life around Joseph as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? It seems that the Church holds up a distorted idolatrous image of Joseph, but long ago abandoned Joseph's ideas and practices.

Nah, I'm going to disagree with this one. We haven't abandoned very many teaching of Joseph. We haven't abandoned Polygamy, regardless of what Hinkley said on 60 minutes. We haven't abandoned polytheism regardless of what Hinkley said either. The best we do is not talk much about things Joseph taught.

I think it's worth noting, that this seems to be the only thing on which we really significantly disagree.

[Emower]

So many people -- so many different expectations. One of my friends once expressed to me that he was so happy when I left Mormonism. But, he's an evangelical and he expected me to live according to evangelical expectations and to reject evolution. That didn't happen either so he wasn't really happy. I've failed to live up to lots of different expectations that lots of different people have had for me.

Oh man, I have had that happen to me so many times now. People are excited that I have "seen the light," only to conclude that I have not actually "seen the light."

Some of this, not all but some, is a little bit like the saying from some atheists, "You reject 2,999 gods and accept one. I'm not much different. I only reject one more." Only, substitute in something about expectations for how I live my life or which historical or contemporary figure I orient my life around.

I like that saying.

Even the Christology that Joseph propounds in the BoM has been abandoned. The modern church hasn't seen a revelation in decades, or possibly more than a century.

How so? This is a topic on my long list to research, and I have never really gotten around to it. At the risk of threadjacking my own thread, can you expound on that? I know that we have reduced many of his teachings to the point of irrelevancy, but most of those still exist as a glimmer of complexity in a sea of unremarkable-ness. Whispers of "deep doctrine & mysteries" only uttered in small circles.

I think it's worth noting, that this seems to be the only thing on which we really significantly disagree.

True, and I am not trying to be directly confrontational. Sometimes it is hard for me to participate in a discussion without needing to argue.

[Emower]

If you were to describe a similar historical incidence to a Chapel Mormon not versed in the wily ways of apologetics to give their opinion, they would probably say the guy was a scumbag. If you told them Joseph Smith did the same thing, they would become defensive and quit listening to you. The fact of the matter is that Joseph's life does not jive with current social mores.

This is the thing more than anything that bothers me. Mormons and anyone else for that matter seem to be more than willing to use today's standards to judge plenty of other historical figures, as corsair noted above. But when it comes to our beloved leaders we have to put the kid gloves on. Like you, it makes me wonder if what they are implicitly or unconsciously doing is what you allude to below.

Not sure if any current LDS apologists have exerted the German philosophical claim of the Ubermensch, that some men such as Joseph are beyond ordinary ethics and morality because of their superior nature and destiny - unless having higher keys is a code substitution for this Nietzschian term.

[Emower]

Follow up question for all:

Does the general populace do the same thing for other historical figures? We dont feel the need to explain away Martin Luther's problems, but what about figures closer to home? We revere our founding American fathers, however some of them had conflicting values. I am thinking slavery here, and I am going to lead off with a statement of heavy ignorance on the matter. I dont know much about it, some of you probably do. But we had a constitution founded on freedom for all, by folks who owned slaves. I was taught in school that it was OK because thats just what you did at the time. We know its wrong now, but they didnt at the time. Same argument.

I suppose if I try to carry my point about Joseph to this situation I would be saying that their attitudes impugn the bill of rights. I am not sure I want to do that. So maybe I am being unfair to Joseph.

[Jeffret]

Even the Christology that Joseph propounds in the BoM has been abandoned. The modern church hasn't seen a revelation in decades, or possibly more than a century.

How so? This is a topic on my long list to research, and I have never really gotten around to it. At the risk of threadjacking my own thread, can you expound on that? I know that we have reduced many of his teachings to the point of irrelevancy, but most of those still exist as a glimmer of complexity in a sea of unremarkable-ness. Whispers of "deep doctrine & mysteries" only uttered in small circles.

Are you asking about the Christology of the BoM? Or the lack of revelation in the church.

True, and I am not trying to be directly confrontational. Sometimes it is hard for me to participate in a discussion without needing to argue.

Oh, the discussion is fun -- I just thought it was worth highlighting how close we really are on most things.

[Jeffret]

Follow up question for all:

Does the general populace do the same thing for other historical figures? We dont feel the need to explain away Martin Luther's problems, but what about figures closer to home? We revere our founding American fathers, however some of them had conflicting values. I am thinking slavery here, and I am going to lead off with a statement of heavy ignorance on the matter. I dont know much about it, some of you probably do. But we had a constitution founded on freedom for all, by folks who owned slaves. I was taught in school that it was OK because thats just what you did at the time. We know its wrong now, but they didnt at the time. Same argument.

I suppose if I try to carry my point about Joseph to this situation I would be saying that their attitudes impugn the bill of rights. I am not sure I want to do that. So maybe I am being unfair to Joseph.

Absolutely! It's human nature. There are tons of examples.

It's rather a political controversy these days, though it's been overshadowed by the all the other craziness going on. Some forms of it involve the term "American Exceptionalism", though that term can mean different things to different people. The base idea is that America (the U.S.A., specifically) is unique and exceptional in the world. In the minds of many, it shouldn't be criticized. Specifically, in Texas and other conservative bastions, they strongly object to school textbooks portraying any indication that American has ever done anything wrong or ever made any mistakes. Historians, and really anyone who has a decent clue of American history, recognizes that America has made a lot of mistakes, particularly in its treatment of minorities over the centuries. Slavery, Native Americans, pretty much every significant new immigrant population, women, Japanese, religious minorities.... The List goes on and on. They insist that only the parts that they find pleasing and comforting be retained and all other aspects must be excised. Or the situations must be made to sound good, such as describing slavery as a minor practice that was really a boon to the slaves.

The Founding Fathers really have a lot to answer for. The 3/5 compromise is appalling, though it did enable them to move forward and push the problem off for another bloody day. Thomas Jefferson did and wrote a number of things that have been very valuable but in a number of ways he was pretty despicable. Jefferson owned slaves, which I consider a very serious offense, and a sin Joseph never lowered himself to. There have long been efforts to cover up, deny, or ignore Jefferson's sexual relationship with his slave, Sally Hemings. It was officially denied for a long time, but these days it is officially recognized by historians in general and by tour guides and others at Monticello. We don't know for certain, but the best evidence now suggests that Jefferson fathered some and probably all of Sally's six children. In some ways I kind of excuse Jefferson as a product of his time. In other ways, I have a hard time accepting that as any kind of justification. Nevertheless, if we threw out everything Jefferson contributed to our country, it would be far, far different. Besides the country being much, much smaller, we'd have to throw out the Declaration of Independence and the ideas of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. And that's just getting started.

While not a Founding Father, Andrew Jackson was one of the early American presidents. (He's a favorite of Donald Trump.) It's hard to find much nice to say to say about Jackson and easy to find fault. He was a tyrant, slaver, war criminal, ethnic cleanser, and genocidal maniac. With Jackson, it's tough to even start to raise the justification that he was a product of his time and that we shouldn't judge him by 21st century social conventions. He was vile by pretty much any standard. Admittedly, by proclaiming himself a representative of god, Joseph kind of upped the bar by which he should be judged, but compared to Jackson, Joseph qualifies for sainthood.

[moksha]

Does the general populace do the same thing for other historical figures?

Some might. I remember speaking with an Evangelical guy one time when he went off on Thomas Jefferson. I whimsically asked he what he thought of the Strom Thurmond situation and he cooled his jets.

Speaking as a religious person, I think it is good to minimize judgment to a bare minimum and exercise forgiveness whenever possible. I think the best course for defenders of the LDS Church is to admit Joseph's screw-ups and then forgive him. However, when they fail to show the same mercy and forgiveness to others it is hard to reconcile the double standard. When they offer denial, obfuscation, and ad hominems in place of honesty they will never shed the shadow.

[LaMachina]

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.

I agree to a point but feel like you may be strawmanning Joseph's position. He didn't give a crap if Helen wanted sex or not? He didn't give a crap about how she felt?
Where do you get that? He was a predator, a seducer and a manipulator but I haven't seen evidence he's a rapist.

I try to seduce my wife all the time but I certainly care whether she reciprocates any interest.

We take babies from parents all the time. Selling kids is of course another issue but considering the costs of adoption maybe it's not entirely different.

The phrase "do no harm" is of course useful but can be simplistic and get twisted. Every parent I'm sure has had that struggle of "this is gonna hurt but it's for your own good"

But honestly, I'm not trying to be a pedantic a-hole. I believe there are absolutely some black and white issues but I find a lot of moral questions can get pretty complicated, regardless of presentism.

[Corsair]

But honestly, I'm not trying to be a pedantic a-hole. I believe there are absolutely some black and white issues but I find a lot of moral questions can get pretty complicated, regardless of presentism.

I appreciate your pedantry. The LDS church has a lot of pedantry that we are unable to question. LDS leaders are often annoyed that we concentrate on "little flecks of history", but are outraged when we concentrate on pointing out little flecks of LDS policy. The November 2015 policy is a good example of this. The rules on beards in the BYU Honor Code are another piece of weirdness. Rules about temple sealings are equally problematic beyond first marriages. The complete anathema of coffee and tea continues to be a sticky point.

[Emower]

Are you asking about the Christology of the BoM? Or the lack of revelation in the church.

Definitely the Christology. I'm good on the lack of revelation...

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.

I agree to a point but feel like you may be strawmanning Joseph's position. He didn't give a crap if Helen wanted sex or not? He didn't give a crap about how she felt?
Where do you get that? He was a predator, a seducer and a manipulator but I haven't seen evidence he's a rapist.

I try to seduce my wife all the time but I certainly care whether she reciprocates any interest.

We take babies from parents all the time. Selling kids is of course another issue but considering the costs of adoption maybe it's not entirely different.

The phrase "do no harm" is of course useful but can be simplistic and get twisted. Every parent I'm sure has had that struggle of "this is gonna hurt but it's for your own good"

But honestly, I'm not trying to be a pedantic a-hole. I believe there are absolutely some black and white issues but I find a lot of moral questions can get pretty complicated, regardless of presentism.

The phrase "do no harm" could mean different things based on the time period as well, which points back to my original post. Blood letting, sometimes with leeches, was employed to help people and accomplished a "do no harm" at the time. We now wouldnt put the same practice in that category today. Is it fair for us to judge those guys who used leeches by todays medical knowledge? Of course not. This is where motivation and intentions come in I guess. Also this is where it gets murky with Joseph. Can we judge his intentions? I feel that we have enough information from multiple directions and circumstantial evidence to do that. Some would disagree and I guess I have to respect that.

I suppose I do feel in the same way we cannot toss the constitution because Thomas Jefferson had slaves, we cannot toss the church on account of Joseph maybe being a horn-dog. Fortunately enough, there are enough other problems that add up for me to take into consideration as well.