Brigham Young allowed his secretary, George D. Watt, to marry his own half-sister since there was precedent in the Bible, Abraham having been the half-brother of his wife Sarah, though later in the Bible the practice (of sibling-sex if not marriage anyway) was explicitly condemned. (Also condemned at the same time was uncle-niece marriage, which must have given Moses a complex since he was born of such a union.) Watt’s marriage to his maternal half sister, Jane Brown, produced at least three children. (From a direct descendant’s genealogy page.)
What’s interesting is that Young’s descendant (by one of Joseph Smith’s widows, Zina Huntingdon, who was legally married to yet a third man who lived near her in Utah), Orson Scott Card, wrote a novel about Sarah and Abraham in which Abraham’s identification of her as his sister is said to be a lie- completely without Biblical precedent (the Bible never says he was lying and gives no info that would contradict this, and in fact when he wants a bride for Isaac he sends his servant to look for one from among his brother’s descendants; both of Isaac’s sons marry their first cousins as well). Card’s bit of convenient re-writing of the story wouldn’t irk me if it weren’t for the fact he’s a major force in the movement to prevent the legalization of gay marriages.
And who is Larson? He’s not a historian, linguist, archaeologist or egyptologist. Some random guy who writes a book for the “Institute for Religious Research”? An evangelical group that targets Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, etc.?
The photos of the fragments and the Kirtland Papers aren’t in dispute. It’s the interpretation of what they are that is in dispute. John Gee tears Larson’s flimsy assumptions and reasoning apart quite easily (and he has the advantage of a Ph.D. in Egyptology from Yale–though the review of Larson’s book was 6 years before his Ph.D.).
Having read Kirtland documents, I agree with Gee’s assessment above. It was an abortive effort by Smith’s followers to attempt to create a Rosetta Stone of sorts. One point that Gee makes is much of the A&G is in Warren Parrish’s handwriting, which is odd when coupled with:
You can’t know what is not there – you can guess if you have parallel documents, but there is no indication we have such documents to compare Smith’s fragments to. Gee points out about the lion couch:
And I’ve read more criticisms than just Larson’s and they all fall apart in the details.
But then I’m sure you’ll just say I’m “denying denying denying”.
There are many claims like this of dubious provenance. This purports to be a scan of said letter, but the sentence in question is wildly different in tone from the rest of the document. After stating “All of this should be conveyed without having priesthood leaders focus upon intimate matters which are a part of husband and wife relationships. Skillful interviewing and counseling can occur without discussion of clinical details by placing firm responsibility on individual members of the Church…” it supposedly talks about a specific act? It looks like a badly-done hoax, and without better evidence, I really can’t take it seriously.
Note that this isn’t “deny deny deny” – it’s requesting decent evidence. A low-res image that could be faked in five minutes (Dan Rather anyone?) is hardly convincing evidence. Surely there’s a high-res version out there if it’s real? This is the kind of thing that commonly floats about as rumor, that non-LDS claim is LDS doctrine etc. I could be convinced with better evidence, but sheesh.
Seriously? Give me a break. Yes, this is exactly “deny deny deny.” This is why I don’t bother debating Mormons online anymore. Are you denying that the “unnatural, impure, or unholy practices” letter exists? We have a scan of it. Thousands of people have seen it. Faithful Mormons talk about it all the time. It’s in the BYU Library Special Collections.
Better Mormon apologists than you concede it exists. You’re wasting everyone’s time demanding cites for things that you should already know.
If there is no critical discussion of the Book of Mormon, then you simply must reject it. It is clearly a work of fiction, because:
-none of the places mentioned in it have ever been found
-there is no archeological evidence that the wars, battles mentioned in it ever took place
-there is no genetic trace in the native americans of the BOM Hebrews
-no egyptologist has ever found an inscription in this “reformed egyptian” that the mormons speak of
Finally, there is the damning evidence of Joseph Smith’s shady past, as a treasure finder and con man. His trial records (for fraud) exist.
Thismay not be the best source for the court records. I’ve seen the actual .pdf of the court transcript and related docs, but I’m having a hard time finding them now.
The charges were for being a “disorderly person” and an imposter. The definition of “disorderly person” at the time specifically prohibitted pretending to locate buried treasure using magic. Joseph Smith had been hired by Josiah Stowell to find gold on Stowell’s farm. Joseph would look into his seer-stone and tell Stowell where to dig. For these services, Joseph received room, board, and a salary. Stowell fully trusted Joseph even though a ghost would keep moving the gold right before it was found. But Stowell’s friends and relatives believed it was a con, and Joseph Smith was arrested, tried, found guilty, and fined.
This occurred before Joseph Smith supposedly received the gold plates and the Urim and Thummin. Note the recurring theme of magic rocks and buried gold being protected by a ghost (the angel Moroni). The biography Rough Stone Rolling (written by a believer) describes in great detail how Joseph’s experience as a con man prepared him for his sacred calling as a prophet.
I read the book from the perspective of a recent apostate. My wife and I read it out loud, and at the time she was probably 95% apostate too. It amazes me that Bushman could do so much research and write such a biography and remain a Mormon. Every crime, every false prophesy, and every blatant lie of Joseph Smith is justified as Joseph misunderstood… or In Joseph’s mind, it wasn’t really a lie. My favorite part is when Smith is excommunicating anyone who calls him a polygamist, publicly denying polygamy, and arranging to have his militia destroy an anti-polygamy newspaper because In Joseph’s mind, his plural wifeism is not the same as polygamy.
I am very curious about how someone who still really wants to believe would respond to the book. Maybe to a Mormon, Smith’s attrocities can be shrugged off as minor blemishes in his character. “Deny, deny, deny” becomes “Justify, ignore, justify.”
Here is a better cite than the one I provided earlier. It includes transcripts and photos of court documents and the histories of how they were found, as well as an attempt by a modern forger to change the accused’s name from Joseph Smith to Josiah Stowell.
Utah Lighthouse Ministry? The Tanners? Really? That’s not exactly a reliable source. They’ve been demonstrated as frauds in the past (I did that here on this board some years ago).
Surely you checked sources that argue against this claim and compared the evidence and arguments, right?
Glad to help. I don’t like to think of myself as anti-Mormon, but I get some weird pleasure in spreading the truth about Joseph Smith et al. I guess I still have some of the same missionary zeal even now that I’ve switched sides.
I wasn’t aware that the Tanners had been “demonstratred as frauds in the past,” but I’m not surprised. The challenge with any attempt at an unbiased literature search regarding Mormonism is that no one is publishing unbiased information. The closest I’ve found is the Bushman book I’ve mentioned several times (and yes, Bushman concedes that Smith was a magician/money digger/confessed fraud), which presents lots of embarrasing details in a strangely apologetic manner.
The Tanners and other famous anti-Mormons have an agenda, and it’s not necessarily to fight ignorance. BYU historians, however, are employed by the LDS to deny and cover up history. Those who publish the truth get fired and excommunicated. I spent months researching several topics before becoming apostate, and I searched for counterarguments to every claim, both Mormon and anti-Mormon.
I am satisfied that Joseph Smith confessed to fradulently peering into a seer-stone for profit in 1826. If you find evidence to the contrary, please share it. But if you are going to assume that 1) all embarrasing information is anti-Mormon, and 2) all anti-Mormon literature is all biased and false, then there’s not much point in having a discussion with you.
You don’t seem to understand that fallacy. I’ve demonstrated how the Tanners have lied in the past, thus I can’t take them as a valid source. If it were corroborated, that would add weight to their claim.
I’m interested in tracking all of the information down, but proving the Tanners to be liars again isn’t my highest priority.
Would that be similar to someone lying about finding buried treasure only to later make the same claim, this time about some fantastical religious artifacts that only he be allowed to see?
Yes, please do, at least point us toward your previous evidence of their fraud here on the boards. In my experience, they’re hardly objective, since they refused to apply the same standards to ordinary Christianity as they did to Mormonism, but they’ve been generally honest. They didn’t glom on to the Hofmann forgeries like a lot of other anti-Mormons, for instance, even though the documents appeared to be damaging to the church.
