Tal Bachman DECIMATES a popular apologetic

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Re: Tal Bachman DECIMATES a popular apologetic

Post by _harmony »

Ray A wrote:
harmony wrote:Henry only had one wife at a time. He got rid of/killed each one before he married the next one. That small detail means he and Joseph were not in the same club. Henry was a killer; Joseph was an adulterer.


This is not the subject. The subject is whether society is morally better now or not.


Yes, and you brought up Henry and his many wives, as if he was relevant. Now you know his situation isn't relevant to this discussion at all.

Muhammad married a nine year old girl.


Can we stick to historical facts and leave the religious myths aside?


The Hadith states she was six or seven when betrothed and nine when she married Muhammad. But there is some disputation. There is no "religious myth" here.

This is still not the main subject. The subject is whether society is morally better now or not.


And now you're telling me the Muslim religion isn't built on myth? All religions are built on myth, Ray. It's the nature of the beast. So let's stick to what is verifiable historical facts, instead of religious myths, okay?

1. Jefferson is one of many, and is not representative of the entire sample.
2. If I recall correctly, it's not completely established that Jefferson fathered children with his female slave.
3. US presidents and LDS prophets are two very different catagories, driven by different motives. The people supposedly "call" one; God supposedly calls the other. Two very different standards apply.


This is not the subject. The subject is whether society is morally better now or not.


You're the one who brought up the presidents to illustrate your point.

Even if every single one of the critics was guilty, that doesn't mean Joseph should be given a free pass. He did what he did. There is no getting around that, no matter what sins the critics themselves have on their own personal slate.


Still not on subject, but I know of your deep love and affection for Joseph Smith. You must have to take sedatives when you go to church and hear his name, which I gather is not often.


You're the one who keeps dragging in all these other people and/or myths to illustrate your point (or maybe create your red herring?), Ray. What was your point?

I may have missed it, but what is your view? Is society getting more moral, or less moral?


You didn't miss it, because I didn't give it. I was merely replying to your post/series of red herrings.

In case you missed it, my view is that society is getting more moral in some ways, and less moral in others, and I described in detail why. I also don't believe basic human nature has changed. So whether we're talking about Judah and prostitution, King David's adultery, Joseph Smith's polygamy, or Brunei where men are allowed four wives, or Clinton's free oral lessons to Monica Lewinski, human nature remains the same.


Morality is set by the society in which it exists. And clearly the morality of Joseph's day did not commonly include plural marriage or marrying women who were already married.
_Ray A

Re: Tal Bachman DECIMATES a popular apologetic

Post by _Ray A »

harmony wrote:You didn't miss it, because I didn't give it. I was merely replying to your post/series of red herrings.


All of those "red herrings" were part of a wider picture I was painting. I know you didn't give your opinion, I was being cheeky, but I see you do address the wider picture below:


Morality is set by the society in which it exists. And clearly the morality of Joseph's day did not commonly include plural marriage or marrying women who were already married.


I never argued that it did, just to clarify. And I'm uncertain which apologists are arguing that polygamy was acceptable. Nor was lying, nor was marrying other men's wives aceptable to society. But who is arguing this? Which Mormon apologist is saying that these things were acceptable to society? Joseph Smith himself said that if he told his followers all that he knew some would rise up and seek to take his life. So I think if anyone realised he was going contrary mores of society, it was Joseph Smith. Those who believe that he was a prophet and polygamy was divinely instituted will uphold him, believing that God's law is higher than man's law. That is what they accept, even if it was contrary to contemporary mores. But I doubt that any apologist will argue that what Joseph did in this regard was acceptable to the morals of his society. I may be wrong, but I'd like to see some examples. To them it was right only because they believe God commanded it.
Post Reply