Polygamy justification?

[Jarid in Cedar]

Jeesh Jarid, you're not even on the no contact list. As far as labels go, sadly, I think we've got to go with "less active LDS Ute Fan," or "LALUF" for short.

I liked IALUF myself(Inactive lDS Ute fan)

[UtahDan]

Seems to me there's nothing wrong with apologetics as long as the apologist's agenda is known - mand any decent apologist makes his point of view clear. (C.S. Lewis, e.g.) In the theological/philosophical sense, the views of apologists are very important and should not be discounted. As long as the apologist tells the truth, he/she can try to explain, defend, or put into context the truth, without losing credibility. I viewed Rough Stone Rolling as apologetic in nature.

As I say, they have their place. But on this topic they don't interest me. Maybe I am just so turned off by FARMS style apologetics that I am lumping them all together unfairly. I don't need this particular subject spun for me is my point, I suppose. We will have to disagree about RSR being apologetic. I thinkn Bushman has a bias, which he acknowledges, but I don't really see him spinning much either direction. Not consciously anyway.

[LA Ute]

As I say, they have their place. But on this topic they don't interest me. Maybe I am just so turned off by FARMS style apologetics that I am lumping them all together unfairly. I don't need this particular subject spun for me is my point, I suppose. We will have to disagree about RSR being apologetic. I thinkn Bushman has a bias, which he acknowledges, but I don't really see him spinning much either direction. Not consciously anyway.

I guess I just don't see a good, honest apologist as spinning.

[SeattleUte]

I guess I just don't see a good, honest apologist as spinning.

Your example of CS Lewis isn't really demonstrative or illuminating. He didn't engage in the kind of pseudoscience we see in that "natural history" museum in the south that has an exhibit on Noah's Ark, the "intelligent design in the science class" movement, or the mendacity that FARMS has engaged in. Such efforts are just plain dishonest efforts to ape science and are thoroughly agenda driven. Of course, scientists are people too and can fall prey to agendas and often do. But the true professionals know that science must be bloodless in a never ending search for objectively demonstrated truth.

CS Lewis was more like a really super dumbed down Dostoevski or Tolstoy. Through artistic and philosphical works he expressed his faith and addressed such issues as the tension between reason vs. faith, misapplied reason, etc. CS Lewis was a Christian artist and somewhat of a cult figure, not really an apologist.

[UtahDan]

I guess I just don't see a good, honest apologist as spinning.

Hmm. I guess you are going to force me to define what I mean by that. How about if I substitute the word interpreting for spinning? In a book about the polyanderous relationships of Joseph, I want the author to tell me what the evidence is, what the source of it is, any context that would make that source more or less reliable, and reproduce as much of the sources as possible. I have zero interest in anyone telling me that, therefor, Joseph lied about this or that, or that alternatively, Joseph's motives were pure and fully reconcilable to revealed truth.

I already think Joseph is a prophet and I have accepted him with his flaws. Does that make sense?

[SeattleUte]

Hmm. I guess you are going to force me to define what I mean by that. How about if I substitute the word interpreting for spinning? In a book about the polyanderous relationships of Joseph, I want the author to tell me what the evidence is, what the source of it is, any context that would make that source more or less reliable, and reproduce as much of the sources as possible. I have zero interest in anyone telling me that, therefor, Joseph lied about this or that, or that alternatively, Joseph's motives were pure and fully reconcilable to revealed truth.

I already think Joseph is a prophet and I have accepted him with his flaws. Does that make sense?

Or, how about this: The world doesn't need another book on this. There is not much original material out there on this. Is there some new archive material just been opened up to scholars? This subject is of limited and limiting interest. I don't plan to read the book and if it's writen by any form of apologist I won't even bother with the review (unless it's someone like Larry McMurtry, an artist in his own right, which I highly doubt will happen).

[UtahDan]

Or, how about this: The world doesn't need another book on this. There is not much original material out there on this. Is there some new archive material just been opened up to scholars? This subject is of limited and limiting interest. I don't plan to read the book and if it's writen by any form of apologist I won't even bother with the review (unless it's someone like Larry McMurtry, an artist in his own right, which I highly doubt will happen).

Actually, I think this is a relatively new area of inquiry with Compton's book being just the first step. Sure the material has all been around forever but unless you have spend time in library collections all over the west you would not have been able to piece together what Compton did. That someone else could piece together even more information on this particular topic, which Compton touched on but did not expound, does not seem impossible to me. Don't we have to see the book before we know?

If it is just a regurgitation what what others have said along with an argument as to how that should all be viewed, then as I say, not interested.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Actually, I think this is a relatively new area of inquiry with Compton's book being just the first step. Sure the material has all been around forever but unless you have spend time in library collections all over the west you would not have been able to piece together what Compton did. That someone else could piece together even more information on this particular topic, which Compton touched on but did not expound, does not seem impossible to me. Don't we have to see the book before we know?

If it is just a regurgitation what what others have said along with an argument as to how that should all be viewed, then as I say, not interested.

Compton's book was a classic to me. Using journal entries removed so much of the speculation/apologetic/vindictiveness that other foray's into the topic had produced.

[SeattleUte]

Actually, I think this is a relatively new area of inquiry with Compton's book being just the first step. Sure the material has all been around forever but unless you have spend time in library collections all over the west you would not have been able to piece together what Compton did. That someone else could piece together even more information on this particular topic, which Compton touched on but did not expound, does not seem impossible to me. Don't we have to see the book before we know?

If it is just a regurgitation what what others have said along with an argument as to how that should all be viewed, then as I say, not interested.

So many books, so little time. It seems like Compton's book fills the bill. I don't know why anyone should need to read more than one good book on this subject. I get it. I think I know what was going on. But that's just me.

[beelzebabette]

So many books, so little time. It seems like Compton's book fills the bill. I don't know why anyone should need to read more than one good book on this subject. I get it. I think I know what was going on. But that's just me.

Why read a book when you can just fabricate your own history. I like this approach.

[UtahDan]

So many books, so little time. It seems like Compton's book fills the bill. I don't know why anyone should need to read more than one good book on this subject. I get it. I think I know what was going on. But that's just me.

The fact that I have multiple polygamist ancestors, one of which was a member of the church hierarchy both pre and post Manifesto permanently inks my interest in this topic. Just as your Mormon heritage permanently inks your interest in Mormonity (I know that isn't a word, but I like how it rolls of my tongue, it is pronounced to rhyme with "manatee").

[SeattleUte]

The fact that I have multiple polygamist ancestors, one of which was a member of the church hierarchy both pre and post Manifesto permanently inks my interest in this topic. Just as your Mormon heritage permanently inks your interest in Mormonity (I know that isn't a word, but I like how it rolls of my tongue, it is pronounced to rhyme with "manatee").

I'm a lot more interested in subjects like Middle Eastern, European and American history and evolution for similar reasons.

[UtahDan]

I'm a lot more interested in subjects like Middle Eastern, European and American history and evolution for similar reasons.

They're not mutually exclusive. I'm very much enjoying Tolstoy by the way.

[SeattleUte]

They're not mutually exclusive. I'm very much enjoying Tolstoy by the way.

I agree. I'm being subjective. That's great.

[Rosebud]

I can't think of a book I have read that is free from bias and I believe this to be the case whether or not that bias is explicitly recognized by the author. Brian C. Hales is active LDS and is intelligent enough to recognize that his own beliefs may affect his work. Fortunately, Lavina Fielding Anderson (of the September Six) has been helping edit the book this year. As one of the original trustees of the Mormon Alliance and 17 years as editor of the Journal of Mormon History, she has the background to keep Hales honest. With both of these people on board, my guess is that the book would be valuable for anyone from Seattle to Indy... but there are probably others here who would enjoy it more. I personally expect it to be cutting edge . If I'm still posting here next year, I'd be one for reopening this discussion with anyone who takes the time to read the book.