bcspace's lies

[MsJack]

In an odd twist of fate, it seems that I have picked up my own "malevolent stalker": bcspace.

bcspace has decided to spread lies about me, even going so far as to perpetuate his lies on other forums and in threads that have absolutely nothing to do with the parent threads in which the initial conflict took place. For that reason I have chosen to compile this thread documenting his lies as well as the absurdity of his claims so that I can bump it whenever he chooses to repeat said lies, similar to what beastie has done with Yahoo Bot (AKA "Plutarch," "Lee Bishop," "Null H.") in her thread "Rcrockett's libel."

I've observed bcspace long enough to know that engaging him is by and large a waste of time and he will never cop to his lies or admit to a mistake. However, I present this thread so that informed forum members and lurkers who wonder what bcspace is talking about can come to their own conclusions.

Let's get started.

The Comments That Started It All

On Thursday, June 10, 2010, long-time forum member Jason Bourne, an active member of the LDS church who seems to be struggling with the difficult parts of the church's history, made the following remark:

Joseph Smith commmitted adultery many times over and used an alleged revelation to justify it.

To this, bcspace responded with one of his typical calls for references ("CFR"). Recognizing that Jason Bourne was merely offering his own polemical interpretation on facts about Joseph Smith that virtually all LDS historians accept (i. e. he had sex with women whom he claimed were his plural wives), I facetiously replied:

Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City, Utah.: Signature Books, 1997): 1-788.

Sarcasm is one of many things that inevitably seems to go over bcspace's head. There are only 788 pages in Todd Compton's book plus the introductory material. When you call for a reference and someone gives you all of the pages in an entire book, it is not a serious attempt to provide a reference. It is a sarcastic way of saying, "You're ignorant on this topic. Read a book on it."

My use of Compton is actually very simple: Compton makes the case that Joseph Smith's relationships with his "celestial wives" were sexual. These arguments are spread throughout his chapters on Smith's wives, but he presents the bulk of his historical and theological conclusions for thinking so on p. 12-15. My intention in citing Compton was not to say, "Compton argues that Smith's marriages were adulterous," but rather, "Compton presents evidence of sexuality in Smith's marriages that readers are within their rights to draw their own conclusions on." Jason Bourne made it clear in his comment that he does not think God issued any commandment to practice polygamy. That Smith's unions were adulterous is a reasonable conclusion for anyone who rejects the argument that God commanded Smith to institute polygamy.

Furthermore, it should be obvious that evangelical Christians such as myself reject the idea that God commanded Smith to practice polygamy. Many evangelicals interpret Jesus' teachings on divorce in Matthew 19:8-9 as a staunch prohibition of polygamy that equates polygamy with adultery (for an example of this argument, see here). I don't agree with that interpretation of the text myself, but I would lose credibility in the evangelical community if I were outright dismissive of the idea that post-OT polygamy = adultery.

It is worth taking a moment here to pause and point out that the likelihood of sexuality in Joseph Smith's marriages has been admitted by numerous pro-LDS and apologetic sources. Faithful historian Richard Lyman Bushman acknowledged this in Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling (New York: Knopf, 2005), 438-39. In the FARMS Review of George D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy: ... but we called it celestial marriage, reviewer Gregory L. Smith acknowledged that there was "persuasive" evidence for a "conjugal relationship" with at least 8 of Joseph Smith's wives as well as "late, hostile evidence of intimacy with Fanny Alger" [Gregory L. Smith, "Review of George D. Smith's Nauvoo Polygamy," FARMS Review 20.2 (2008): 71]. One of the anonymously authored FAIRWiki articles on Smith's polygamy also acknowledges that Smith's marriages could have very well been sexual.

(H/T on the above paragraph: MormonThink)

In addition to this, respected non-LDS historian Lawrence Foster, one of three non-Mormons to have served as President of the Mormon History Association and a man who is referenced later by Compton in the excerpt that bcspace himself cites, agrees that Smith's marriages were almost certainly sexual, writing, "[T]he almost unanimous testimony of Smith's followers, informed ex-Mormons and anti-Mormons, and his plural wives themselves was that his wives were, indeed, wives in every sense of the word, lacking only public acknowledgement. It is difficult to understand how Smith's followers could have been induced to adopt the new practices if he had not led the way himself." [Lawrence Foster, Religion and Sexuality: Three American Communal Experiments of the Nineteenth Century (New York: Oxford University Press, 1981): 156]

Conclusion: There is nothing "Tannerite"-esque about thinking sexuality happened in Joseph Smith's marriages. There is also nothing "Tannerite"-esque about allowing others to draw their own conclusions concerning the spiritual validity of Smith's marriage practices. The idea that Smith's marriages were adulterous in God's eyes is as much a valid take on the data as the pro-LDS sentiment that Smith's marriages were earnestly commanded by God.

I myself would never write in a published essay that Smith committed adultery "again and again," as I think such an interpretation is the historical equivalent of leading the witness. However, if people on Internet message boards (a format that I consider laid back and refuse to take seriously) want to publish such opinions, I don't really mind.

bcspace's Lies

Apparently, my sarcastic reference to Compton upset bcspace very deeply. With no further evidence whatsoever, he immediately jumped to the bizarre conclusion that I am, in actuality, a covert disciple of the Tanners, reasoning that my use of Compton somehow proved this. He opened a new thread containing the following smear (emphasis mine):

I certainly don't agree with some of Compton's conclusions or his liberal pov, but I often see Compton's work being used as the Tanner's use it (Such as was recently the case with Mrs Jack Meyers outing herself as an intellectually dishonest Tannerite) which Compton has criticized.

I repeatedly challenged bcspace to demonstrate that I am in any way, shape, or form a disciple of the Tanners or a fan of their work or methodology. He has failed to provide anything other than my reference to Compton as discussed above, which does not demonstrate what he claims. His smear may have originally been an irrational mistake born of an ill-conceived emotional reaction to my words, but since he refuses to retract the statement in spite of evidence to the contrary, he is knowingly perpetuating an untruth, which makes him a liar. He is now utilizing exactly the sort of "yellow journalism" tactics that he so often feigns to denounce.

Strangely enough, bcspace took his lies over to MADB in a duplicate thread on the subject, but edited my name out of his smears--likely because he knew he would never be able to substantiate his lies among people who have known me for years.

In addition to being unable to substantiate his "Tannerite" claim, bcspace has failed to show a single incident of "intellectual dishonesty" on my part. It is another one of his lies.

bcspace has also blatantly lied elsewhere concerning this exchange:

[Ms. Jack] gave only one claim, that Compton's work proved that Joseph Smith had adulterous affairs and never could give a specific reference.

I never claimed that Compton's work "proved that Joseph Smith had adulterous affairs." See above for my use of Compton.

Evidence That I Am Not a Tannerite

On the thread in which bcspace started his lies about me, I immediately explained to him how wrong he was in positing any sort of connection between my work and those of the Tanners. I wrote:

BCSpace, you are a presumptuous idiot. I have never in my life owned a book by the Tanners, nor am I anything that can remotely be called a "Tannerite." Compton is one of my favorite LDS historians (I just mentioned this fact in a blog post earlier today---final paragraph in the post) and I read his book on Joseph Smith's plural wives in high school long before I had ever read an entire book by the Tanners.

In addition to this, I met Sandra Tanner in March when a group of TEDS students traveled out to Utah. She did one of her presentations on LDS doctrine and what goes on in LDS temples, complete with male and female temple clothes and showing us one of the tokens, and I was given no forewarning that she would do this. I was intensely uncomfortable with the entire experience because I've promised my LDS husband to avoid discussion of temple content as much as possible, but there were very few people in the room and I didn't want to draw attention to myself by making a hasty exit.

I was working on a paper for one of my history classes at the time on the evolution of interactions between Mormons and evangelicals in the last 13 years (see my blog post here for my gutted bibliography of that paper) and I wanted to get the counter-cult perspective, so Sandra Tanner was kind enough to grant me an interview, which I still have a recording of and for which I am grateful. That is the extent of any involvement I have ever had with the Tanners.

Additionally, back on May 29, 2009, a trollish counter-cult commentator who came to my blog to argue about Mormonism being a cult and God having sex with Mary asked me, "I’m curious as to your opinion of the Utah Lighthouse Ministry," to which I replied:

UTLM has done some good work in bringing little-known Mormon historical documents and information to light, but they’d have gone a lot further with it if they had been professional about it instead of digging in with the sensationalism and polemics.

Hardly a glowing endorsement of the Tanners' work.

Bottom line: bcspace was just wrong, wrong, wrong in positing any connection between myself and the Tanners, intellectual or otherwise, and he has failed to substantiate his claims. Like CBS in the RatherGate fiasco, he thought he could get away with making crap up, and now the crap is stuck to his face. What's next? "Fake but accurate"?

Other Reasons Why BCSpace's Claims Are Absurd

I've discussed the following personal information about me on this forum, and other information is available elsewhere in public. None of these positive and friendly connections to the LDS community can be claimed by the Tanners:

• I did my undergraduate degree in classics at Brigham Young University having never been a member of the LDS church. As such, I have many friendly connections to professors there, including people in the religion department and members of FARMS.
• The school newspaper printed a front-page story about me while I was there (yes, that is an awful picture of me and yes, spring term at BYU is that boring).
• I am married to an active, TR-holding Mormon, and we have one daughter who is a member of record with the LDS church and attends her father's ward and my own congregation. We use the Book of Mormon in our household religious observances. How many evangelicals can say that?
• I'm one of three non-members to have ever been invited to guest-blog for the pro-LDS blog Times & Seasons (Guest Bloggers; How Wide the Divide, and Can We Ever Bridget?). Other guest-bloggers to this blog have included Daniel Peterson, Blake Ostler, Kevin Barney, Richard Bushman, and Claudia Bushman.
• I attended the 2003 and 2004 FAIR Conferences in Orem and Sandy as a student at BYU. I was invited by FAIR President Scott Gordon to introduce one of the speakers at the 2004 FAIR Conference (see the first paragraph here).
• I have contributed two articles for the Patheos Mormonism Gateway: One Evangelical's View of Mormonism and An Evangelical View of (Mormon) Deification

In addition to this, I am currently completing my MA thesis proposal on a Book of Mormon-related topic. My hope is to recruit a Mormon studies scholar as an outside reader on my thesis committee to help insure fairness and accuracy in my subject matter.

Am I sometimes critical of Mormonism's claims from time to time? Yup. I'm probably more critical of the church's teachings on women than anything else. I have a daughter who is being raised (in part) in the church and I think I would be an irresponsible parent if I did not monitor and critique the influences she is being exposed to. However, I'm just as critical of similar areas in my own religion and I try very hard to be fair to both.

If anything though, I tend to be accused of being too positive about Mormonism. "Going native," "climbing into bed with Mormonism," "you can't call a spade a spade," etc.

Conclusions

• bcspace lies when he accuses me of "intellectual dishonesty." He has failed to establish any such thing on my part.
• bcspace lies when he accuses me of being a "Tannerite." He has failed to establish any evidence that I am a covert disciple of the Tanners.
• bcspace lied when he claimed that I had said Compton had proven Smith an adulterer. I made no such claim.
• The Tanners do not have, never have had, and never will have the amicable relationship to the LDS community that I do.

I have no expectations that bcspace will own up to his lies, but I intend to bump this thread debunking him whenever he attempts to spread them.

[Jason Bourne]

There is one word to describe BC. Disingenuous. He a accuses me of running away from a thread when my last post on that thread (about Warren Jeff's) was a question to BC. in addition on that very thread I noted that I viewed The revelation on plural marriage suspect and thus would view any consummated plural relations as adultery. Last I noted that if the revelation were of God, or if Joseph Smith sincerely believed it of God Joseph Smith was still outside the rules of his own revelation and noted the partridge sisters as one example. thus such relationships could be considered adulterous. BC ignored all of this and continues to say I ran away.

[bcspace]

My response here.

[MsJack]

From the other thread in which bcspace attempts to respond to my evidence here, bcspace writes:

What MsJack fails to note is how long it took her to come up with this new excuse of "sarcasm".

This is incorrect. I stated to bcspace that my use of Compton had been intended "facetiously" on Friday, June 11 at 12:05 pm, here. bcspace still failed to retract his lies about me.

The remainder of his response:

She presented her reference as truth and treated it much like LDS critics here treat their answers, as a natural fact that is so well known that it does not need to be repeated, corroborated, or examined.

So after a while of back and forth, MsJack, instead of either providing a reference or a quote more specific than 788 pages or admiting that she shot from the hip, has spiraled into ever more out of control invective. She's been embarrassed in front of her peers and is looking for a way to keep face by diverting the conversation from answering the question. She simply continues to prove the intellectual bankruptcy of the LDS critic.

I believe the OP of this thread has more than adequately refuted the remainder of his OP.

[Jersey Girl]

My response here.

Your response belongs on this thread of origin which describes the dispute. In my experience, and I have more than anyone here realizes, people who enter into dispute by creating companion threads are people who do not want truth to be realized.

It is a case of one person accused, banking on the tactic of scattering information to such an extent as to make the retrieval of facts nearly impossible to the reader.

I, personally, would like to see the dispute discussed on this thread which nicely documents the origin and chronology of the dispute in question.

While I have no vested interest in this dispute, I do value the process and invite any posters who are interested in following this series of events to confine their responses to this thread so that the matter can be discussed and the outcome realized in full.

Stop playing wag the dog with the truth, bc.

[Joseph]

Mr space is what is commonly referred to as a Mormon A-hole.

It shows over and over in what he posts, how he post and his refusal or inability to carry from one posting to the other the information used. His constant "CFR" when he has seen it before is a poor attempt to keep folks from discussing the issues.

He is the type of person who keeps others from taking LDS folk more seriously.

[Nimrod]

My response here.

Danger, bcspace, danger! Do not follow this path any further, the one blazed so many times by Droopy. You are in serious danger of marginalizing yourself to the point of ridiculous. You are not doing your cause any good, much less justice.

Adultery is the breach of one's marriage promise of fidelity. (That's why single people cannot commit adultery, but only fornication.) Joseph Smith made that fidelity promise in his marriage to Emma. He nevertheless had sex with women other than Emma.

It is not an honorable God that would make one of His followers to breach their promise. But if you believe Joseph Smith, that's exactly what he claims God told him to do. However, Emma was the victim of Joseph Smith adultery, not God. If Joseph Smith's claims are true, that God's angel, bearing a flaming sword, threatened Joseph Smith with death if he did not engage in polygamy, then Joseph Smith was both obeying God and committing adultery regarding Joseph Smith's marriage vows to Emma.

Consider Nephi slaying Laban. Would you argue that was not homicide? Certainly it was homicide--the killing of one human being by another. Was it commanded by God? Well, that's what Joseph Smith claims Nephi wrote on plates. But homicide it yet was.

You don't like the word or concept 'adultery'. But Joseph Smith himself admitted he was not perfect and had many faults. Adultery was one of Joseph Smith's faults, whether Todd Compton or anyone else thought so or not. Breaching the marriage vows Joseph Smith made to Emma renders him an adulterer, plain and simple.

If God commanded Joseph Smith to commit that adultery, it would be an inconsistent and cruel God to punish Joseph Smith for doing so. But the fact remains, Joseph Smith was an adulterer.

[MsJack]

His constant "CFR" when he has seen it before is a poor attempt to keep folks from discussing the issues.

Anyone who has observed my Malevolent Stalker for any given amount of time knows that he is a big fan of the "give the critic a homework assignment" ploy in the form of his endless "CFRs."

If you refuse because you know it's more work for you and he'll just refuse to engage it anyways, he pounds the table over and over again about how you haven't answered his arguments.

If you comply and deliver a devastating, exhaustive critique of his tactics and arguments complete with those "references" he feigns to hold so dear, he evades and obfuscates like mad, as we've now seen him do with this thread when he started his own thread on this topic without linking to my thread or citing my arguments in full.

The only thing to be done is to lay out his failures and remind people again and again what he really is. Hence this thread.

[moksha]

I tend to like board wars between boards rather than posters. Give me a good old fashioned rivalry between the Grate and Specious MAD board and the weenies at the Trailer Park MD board any day.

As individuals, we hurt each others feelings, but is it really a good idea to send that hurt back at those who hurt us?

[Yoda]

My response here.

Your response belongs on this thread of origin which describes the dispute. In my experience, and I have more than anyone here realizes, people who enter into dispute by creating companion threads are people who do not want truth to be realized.

It is a case of one person accused, banking on the tactic of scattering information to such an extent as to make the retrieval of facts nearly impossible to the reader.

I, personally, would like to see the dispute discussed on this thread which nicely documents the origin and chronology of the dispute in question.

While I have no vested interest in this dispute, I do value the process and invite any posters who are interested in following this series of events to confine their responses to this thread so that the matter can be discussed and the outcome realized in full.

Stop playing wag the dog with the truth, bc.

Your wish is my command, wise woman:

:-)

Joseph Smith commmitted adultery many times over and used an alleged revelation to justify it.

To this, bcspace responded with one of his typical calls for references ("CFR"). Recognizing that Jason Bourne was merely offering his own polemical interpretation on facts about Joseph Smith that virtually all LDS historians accept (i. e. he had sex with women whom he claimed were his plural wives), I facetiously replied:

Ms. Jack wrote:
Todd Compton, In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City, Utah.: Signature Books, 1997): 1-788.

Sarcasm is one of many things that inevitably seems to go over bcspace's head.

What MsJack fails to note is how long it took her to come up with this new excuse of "sarcasm". She presented her reference as truth and treated it much like LDS critics here treat their answers, as a natural fact that is so well known that it does not need to be repeated, corroborated, or examined.

So after a while of back and forth, MsJack, instead of either providing a reference or a quote more specific than 788 pages or admiting that she shot from the hip, has spiraled into ever more out of control invective. She's been embarrassed in front of her peers and is looking for a way to keep face by diverting the conversation from answering the question. She simply continues to prove the intellectual bankruptcy of the LDS critic.

As you can see, Jack's OP in this thread wipes the floor with BC's response. The only person who should be embarrassed here is BC.

[MsJack]

I appreciate your concern, Moksha, but I didn't start this thread over hurt feelings. I genuinely wanted to document bcspace's smears and evasive, disingenuous tactics in one neat thread since he has chosen to repeat his lies about me at MADB and in other threads on MormonDiscussions.com. That is all.

[moksha]

I appreciate your concern, Moksha, but I didn't start this thread over hurt feelings. I genuinely wanted to document bcspace's smears and evasive, disingenuous tactics in one neat thread since he has chosen to repeat his lies about me at MADB and in other threads on MormonDiscussions.com. That is all.

I hear you.



Further suggested reading: http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13315


.

[Jersey Girl]

Where has our little spacey friend gone, eh?

[Roger]

For what it's worth, I have always found Bridget's postings to be thoughtful and worth consideration--even when I disagree with her.

I understand Moksha's concerns about directing a thread to one individual but at some point a thread directed to the person who is continually exhibiting unclassy behavior is called for. I think Bridget makes a compelling case (as usual) that it is appropriate in this case. And the freedom to speak one's mind is one of the things I love about this board.

by the way posting the entire page list of a book in response to a frivolous CFR is hilarious. I only wish I would have thought of it myself in times past! (And may have to borrow the idea at some point.)

[beastie]

No reasonable person could possibly take bcspace's charges against Jack seriously.

Personally, I am very happy that I started and maintain my rcrocket thread. When another poster deliberately and maliciously repeats a ridiculous lie, it's difficult to know how to handle it. So taking the time to meticulously put together the evidence demonstrating, without a doubt, that the other poster is simply lying about you, and then using it to keep a "log", so to speak, when the poster keeps repeating the malicious accusation can be a wise move. Even if it doesn't change the poster's behavior, it provides a mechanism by which you can easily refute the charge. It gives you a way of dealing with the issue without having to expend any more time on it. And I do think it's legitimate to want to respond to refute the charges, rather than just ignore it, as is often counseled. Part of the reason posters like bcspace and crocket do what they do is if they repeat the charge over and over, it may just take root in at least some readers' minds. So instead of just ignoring the repeated behavior, record it on the "master thread", and then it becomes obvious that not only is the charge ridiculous and false, but the pattern of behavior of your attacker is obvious.

[Some Schmo]

bc is a troll, plain and simple. He is, by far, the poster I take the least seriously here (and that's really saying something given the likes of Droopy, Yahoo, thews, Will and Nehor).

The thing that makes me suspect he is purposefully full of ____ just to get people going is his constant claim that he's always mopped the floor with critics in his arguments with them. I mean, has he ever done that (let alone "always")? Nobody could be that delusional. That's beyond over the top.

Sometimes, I think everyone should just ignore him (and feel like I'm one of the worst offenders for feeding his trollish behavior), but I have to admit that I'm often entertained by his complete and utter detachment from reality, and can't help but comment on it.

MsJack, I have never once even considered his charges against you. I've never spent a single neuron on it. It's so outrageous, it's not even close to worth the needed energy to give it a moment's thought.

[MCB]

Part of the reason posters like bcspace and crocket do what they do is if they repeat the charge over and over, it may just take root in at least some readers' minds. So instead of just ignoring the repeated behavior, record it on the "master thread", and then it becomes obvious that not only is the charge ridiculous and false, but the pattern of behavior of your attacker is obvious.

Too bad that can't be done IRL, except in a private document that can later be taken to a lawyer.

[MsJack]

For what it's worth, I have always found Bridget's postings to be thoughtful and worth consideration--even when I disagree with her.

Thanks Roger. I appreciate hearing that coming from you as I sense that we probably differ on quite a few issues within the evangelical spectrum.

by the way posting the entire page list of a book in response to a frivolous CFR is hilarious.

I was giggling to myself as I was doing it (yes, I laugh at my own jokes) and my husband asked what was so funny. I said something like, "Oh, this guy is asking for a dumb CFR, so I'm giving him the pages of an entire book." He thought it was hilarious as well.

That bcspace honestly took it seriously only makes it that much funnier.

No reasonable person could possibly take bcspace's charges against Jack seriously.

MsJack, I have never once even considered his charges against you. I've never spent a single neuron on it. It's so outrageous, it's not even close to worth the needed energy to give it a moment's thought.

I figured reasonable people are well past the point of taking bcspace seriously at all, and I figured this post was overkill, but you never know what newcomers to a forum will think. I didn't want to have to follow bcspace around setting the record straight on every thread where he brings it up. The rcrockett thread was a good idea.

I don't think bcspace is a troll; I think he honest-to-gods believes his own crap. I've seen some other apologists over the years who seemed too crazy to be true (like spamLDS) but sustained observation of them has convinced me that they're for real. If they are LDS, I can't believe they'd spend so much time intentionally engaging in behavior that ultimately just makes their own side look bad. If they aren't LDS, I can't believe they would spend years trolling fellow non-Mormons and ex-Mormons and buddying up to fellow Mormons just for the joy of the troll.

Besides, I've seen some absolutely insane evangelicals in my time who were 100% for real. No reason Mormons wouldn't have a few of their own.

[Hoops]

Besides, I've seen some absolutely insane evangelicals in my time who were 100% for real.

Next time I see you coming, I'll find a wider tree.

[MrStakhanovite]

It's a sad state of affairs for someone when Jack makes a call-out thread on you.

[Droopy]

Danger, bcspace, danger! Do not follow this path any further, the one blazed so many times by Droopy. You are in serious danger of marginalizing yourself to the point of ridiculous. You are not doing your cause any good, much less justice.

How can one marginalize oneself in a forum that is already on the far fringes of intellectual discourse?

Adultery is the breach of one's marriage promise of fidelity. (That's why single people cannot commit adultery, but only fornication.) Joseph Smith made that fidelity promise in his marriage to Emma. He nevertheless had sex with women other than Emma.

To the degree any sexual contact occurred, it was within the boundaries of Priesthood authority within the context of the doctrine of plural marriage, which is an appendage to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage for time and all eternity. No adultery is possible in such a case, at least so long as the man in question stays strictly within the bounds of that covenant, just as King David's problem was not the wives given him of the Lord, but his actual adultery with Bathsheba.

Consider Nephi slaying Laban. Would you argue that was not homicide? Certainly it was homicide--the killing of one human being by another. Was it commanded by God? Well, that's what Joseph Smith claims Nephi wrote on plates. But homicide it yet was.

It was justifiable hominced, even if not by modern, western standards.

You don't like the word or concept 'adultery'. But Joseph Smith himself admitted he was not perfect and had many faults. Adultery was one of Joseph Smith's faults, whether Todd Compton or anyone else thought so or not. Breaching the marriage vows Joseph Smith made to Emma renders him an adulterer, plain and simple.

No it doesn't, under the legitimate, divinely authorized practice of plural marriage, any more than Abraham, Issac, Jacob or Moses were adulterers.