Surprised this apologetic view of polygamy hasn't come up here yet

[UtahDan]

Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly didn't see what I wanted to see in JS's polygamy.

Photos?

[wuapinmon]

Photos?

No, a flaming sword. Duh.

[jay santos]

The issue of Smith’s polygamy is, Mormon historian Richard Bushman says, “a Rorschach test” in which people see what they want to see.

I've seen this before. It's an interesting idea.

This is another mystery of early Mormonism to me. I don't think there's a real good answer to it all.

I don't think you can write it off as Joseph being a horn dog, getting with a lot of women, and then coming up with a revelation to explain it all.

I think it's very difficult to believe God authorized the whole thing and every step Joseph took with it was completely following the Holy Ghost.

I think the psychological aspect of Joseph testing how powerful he was, and it was some sort of ego trip, maybe could play into it, but is not a satisfactory answer.

I think Section 132 and the history of it, and some of the details of it, especially the message to Emma is pretty messed up.

I don't know if Joseph out and out lied, or if he misinterpreted various things as being God's revealed word

I think it's more defensible when you look at a more ancient time line and toss out Victorian morals.

It was obviously a failed experiment as you can see messed up families and upset women in Utah in late 1800's. Even without government intervention, it wasn't gonna last forever.

[UtahDan]

Is Warren Jeff's polygamy also a Rorschach test? I love Prof. Bushman but I don't agree with that particular comment. It feels like a slight of hand which suggests there is no objective reason to be appalled by it. Is slavery (another practice of Joseph's day that came to be condemned) a Rorschach test too?

[UtahDan]

I've seen this before. It's an interesting idea.

This is another mystery of early Mormonism to me. I don't think there's a real good answer to it all.

I don't think you can write it off as Joseph being a horn dog, getting with a lot of women, and then coming up with a revelation to explain it all.

I think it's very difficult to believe God authorized the whole thing and every step Joseph took with it was completely following the Holy Ghost.

I think the psychological aspect of Joseph testing how powerful he was, and it was some sort of ego trip, maybe could play into it, but is not a satisfactory answer.

I think Section 132 and the history of it, and some of the details of it, especially the message to Emma is pretty messed up.

I don't know if Joseph out and out lied, or if he misinterpreted various things as being God's revealed word

I think it's more defensible when you look at a more ancient time line and toss out Victorian morals.

It was obviously a failed experiment as you can see messed up families and upset women in Utah in late 1800's. Even without government intervention, it wasn't gonna last forever.

Jay I don't think he has to be a good or bad guy. Most people are both and in great people both are often magnified. I think that is harder to accept if you think God was communicating through him, but certainly this seems to be the position of numerous apologists.

[jay santos]

Is Warren Jeff's polygamy also a Rorschach test? I love Prof. Bushman but I don't agree with that particular comment. It feels like a slight of hand which suggests there is no objective reason to be appalled by it. Is slavery (another practice of Joseph's day that came to be condemned) a Rorschach test too?

I think it's a decent Rorschach test in that there's a reasonably solid case for multiple explanations of the whole polygamy fiasco.

[UtahDan]

I think it's a decent Rorschach test in that there's a reasonably solid case for multiple explanations of the whole polygamy fiasco.

If by that you mean there are a lot of creative explanations then I suppose I agree.

[jay santos]

If by that you mean there are a lot of creative explanations then I suppose I agree.

Honestly I think if one is to lose their testimony of Joseph, other issues are more condemning, first Book of Abraham and next the Book of Mormon (Native American DNA, lack of MesoAmerica evidence for Book of Mormon, peepstone/translation issues, etc). The polygamy thing is secondary, and therefore I think I agree with Bushman that is a good Rohrshar test, f*** the spelling of Rohrshar.

[LA Ute]

Is Warren Jeff's polygamy also a Rorschach test? I love Prof. Bushman but I don't agree with that particular comment. It feels like a slight of hand which suggests there is no objective reason to be appalled by it. Is slavery (another practice of Joseph's day that came to be condemned) a Rorschach test too?

I don't know the context of Bushman's comment, but I think its intentions were modest. I don't think he is saying there's no objective reason to be appalled by Joseph's polygamy. He's probably just saying that if you want to see Joseph as a scoundrel, the information there allows you to do that. If you want to cut Joseph some slack, there's room to do that too-- some will cut him more slack, some will cut him less. You can see Joseph's approach as totally secular (as Foster does) or as imbued with prophetic purpose (as Barlow does). In many way, Joseph Smith's history has always been thus, and not just in the realm of polygamy.

Regarding polygamy, what the Rorschach blot does not allow, in my opinion, is for anyone to say "Move on people, there's nothing to see here."

[UtahDan]

I don't know the context of Bushman's comment, but I think its intentions were modest. I don't think he is saying there's no objective reason to be appalled by Joseph's polygamy. He's probably just saying that if you want to see Joseph as a scoundrel, the information there allows you to do that. If you want to cut Joseph some slack, there's room to do that too-- some will cut him more slack, some will cut him less. You can see Joseph's approach as totally secular (as Foster does) or as imbued with prophetic purpose (as Barlow does). In many way, Joseph Smith's history has always been thus, and not just in the realm of polygamy.

Regarding polygamy, what the Rorschach blot does not allow, in my opinion, is for anyone to say "Move on people, there's nothing to see here."

Maybe "want" is the word that I am having a problem with. If one were to simply say "there is evidence that permits either conclusion" then I would be good. I am reading there the idea that one brings their own agenda to the question and that it dictates their view. I object to that on behalf of both camps, actually. But as you say maybe it is more modest than that.

As I said before, at least in my world view, it is possible to see him as all the things you suggest. I don't see any reason why couldn't be following his loins and simultaneously believe that is what God intended. I think it maybe exactly that, come to think of it.

[Portland Ute]

Regarding polygamy, what the Rorschach blot does not allow, in my opinion, is for anyone to say "Move on people, there's nothing to see here."

Are you suggesting there is "nothing to see here" in regard to this topic?

[UtahDan]

Are you suggesting there is "nothing to see here" in regard to this topic?

I think he just said the opposite of that.

[LA Ute]

Are you suggesting there is "nothing to see here" in regard to this topic?

UD has it right. The opposite.

[Portland Ute]

UD has it right. The opposite.

My bad. I thought you were suggesting that the Rorschach analogy was flawed.

[Moliere]

I don't know the context of Bushman's comment, but I think its intentions were modest. I don't think he is saying there's no objective reason to be appalled by Joseph's polygamy. He's probably just saying that if you want to see Joseph as a scoundrel, the information there allows you to do that. If you want to cut Joseph some slack, there's room to do that too-- some will cut him more slack, some will cut him less. You can see Joseph's approach as totally secular (as Foster does) or as imbued with prophetic purpose (as Barlow does). In many way, Joseph Smith's history has always been thus, and not just in the realm of polygamy.

Regarding polygamy, what the Rorschach blot does not allow, in my opinion, is for anyone to say "Move on people, there's nothing to see here."

I really like this post. It's a good summary and explanation and defines pretty well where I fit, which is that I don't mind studying the history and I cut JS some slack (I've got hormones too you know) but I really don't like the "there's nothing to see here" approach. The more I study the NT the more I realize that all church leaders were flawed and none of them had a very direct line to revelation unless they really and truly needed it.

Thanks LA for posting this.