- Stephen Fleming on The Framework of My Historical Argument about Polygamy: “Yes, I do disagree. The principle is much simpler, as Plato states not only in the Republic but the Laws and Timaeus that highest goal is to have goods and wives in common. Smith never sought to create that full system of selective breading in the Republic, but instead the system of shared marriage among the enlightened guardians. The ones who had been (figuratively) out of the cave and have beheld the Good. Having reached such enlightenment, they could engage in that highest order of marriage and complete unity. There’s a long heritage of such ideas among radical Christian groups (some of which Joseph Sr. had contact with). Furthermore, Smith’s utopianism shows lots of similarities to Plato’s Laws which Plato says people can try if the highest form (the Republic) isn’t possible. The Laws is about assigning stewardship which became central to a lot of Smith’s utopian planning. The Republic’s goal was to create oneness and and uses wording quite similar to the city of Enoch and some DC sections on that theme. So, yes, I think that you and the Josephs read Plato differently.” Oct 23, 16:27
- on The Framework of My Historical Argument about Polygamy: “I’m extremely dubious about The Republic as a source for Joseph Smith’s polygamy. You’re the Plato expert and I understand some of the details are disputed, but it seems like the main objectives are clear: 1) Selective breeding of the guardian class. The state controls who sleeps with whom in festivals, though the guardians are told it’s random so they blame bad luck when they’re left out. The best men are bred with the best women, and often. Lesser individuals breed rarely, if at all, when needed to keep the population up. 2) Destruction of family ties so the guardians are loyal only to the state. Children are taken from their parents immediately after birth. Children do not know who their parents are and vice versa. This seems more like the setting for a dystopian novel than the Celestial Kingdom. Granted, our polygamy apologetics occasionally approach goal #1, though usually framed in terms of improving how children are nurtured rather than improving their nature. But goal #2 is antithetical to Joseph Smith’s entire project. I can see The Republic maybe shifting the Overton window a bit for Joseph Smith. But the Old Testament seems like his obvious primary source, where polygamy is tied to founding a lasting “house” or extended family, not destroying families.” Oct 23, 16:09
- on A Recap of the Book of Mormon Studies Association Conference: “That’s the term she used which is why I use it here.” Oct 23, 15:42
- on Creative and Cultural Self-Reliance: “Lots to think about here and I’m not going to try to respond to all of it. I always found it curious that we value self-reliance when so much of the gospel is about forgetting yourself. But part of the answer is that there are some things we can only do for ourselves. No one can work out for me. No one can read my scriptures for me. I put being creative in that category. Yes, I can listen to recordings of people singing much better than I can sing. But doing that doesn’t give me the benefits of striving to sing beautifully myself. And to ReTx’s point, striving for excellence is a critical part of creativity, and I agree that too many authors these days have given up on it. Another is valuing your output for something more than its utility, including as measured by the income it brings in. (This makes me a little dubious about including all sports in “creativity.” Figure skating, sure. Hockey, maybe not–“good hockey” is nothing more or less than hockey that wins. But it checks the “striving for excellence” box and there are benefits to that alone.) I think it’s great that the internet makes it easy for people to learn to do creative things, even if their best at it is only mediocre. It’s the striving that counts. I have more mixed feelings about the disappearance of gatekeepers who can tell people, “Sorry, but you’re not good enough at this to do it professionally.” That sometimes leads to people trying to make up in quantity and “hustle” what they lack in quality. They lose the striving for excellence that makes creativity valuable. But the biggest problem with Minimum Viable Product books is that lots of people still read them. I don’t have any answers here either.” Oct 23, 15:32
- on A Recap of the Book of Mormon Studies Association Conference: “Latinx? Really? Please show a little more respect for Spanish grammar.” Oct 23, 14:34
- on The Framework of My Historical Argument about Polygamy: “Adoption did not start under Smith, but came after him. Yes, shared marriage is tricky, but is laid out in Plato’s Republic. The abundant allusions to Plato’s Republic in Smith’s utopian statements suggests that was Smith’s ideal. (and I argue that the creation of Mormonism was a helped by more than just Smith, especially his father, but a few others too).” Oct 23, 13:21
- on The Framework of My Historical Argument about Polygamy: “The later institution of adoption of other men by church leaders (BY’s adoption of John D. Lee for example) allowed men to be connected without sharing wives. I don’t remember when this started, but it fits with JS’s notions. I don’t think the Johnson quote supports you, though it certainly explains JS’s thinking. Having women with multiple husbands would devolve to chaos. Whose is this or that child? No one knows. Only the mother could be known (in those days). Somehow this does not seem to me like the kind of orderly kingdoms JS imagined. And he did live in a day that prized male headship, as the Jacob’s pamphlet supports.” Oct 23, 13:16
- on The Framework of My Historical Argument about Polygamy: “I’ll take a look at the pamphlet, but I disagree with your interpretation of Smith’s afterlife theology. I’ll admit that such ideas do fit Brigham Young’s view, but I see Smith as having somewhat different ideals. I see Smith and seeking to bind loved ones together in life to form utopian connections. Sharing wives was a way for men to bind themselves to each other (as the ideal. This didn’t work, of course). I see Benjamin Johnson’s later quote as illustrative of Smith’s purpose. “The Prophet taught us that Dominion & powr in the great future, would be Comensurate with the no [number] of ‘Wives Childin & Friends’ that we inheret here and that our great mission to earth was to Organize a Neculi [nucleus] of Heaven to take with us.”” Oct 23, 12:01
- on The Framework of My Historical Argument about Polygamy: “The Sidney Hay Jacob pamphlet, The Peace Maker, published in Nauvoo in 1842, would seem to argue against your thesis. If it was a trial balloon to test how church members would react to polygamy and was published with Joseph Smiths’s blessing, the argument found in the pamphlet probably reflect JS’s views to some degree. Among other things, the pamphlet argued that polygamy would counteract women’s control (through sex) of men, and that would be a good thing! Beyond this, even though JS marries already-married women and encouraged them to still live with their husbands, his thought processes about building kingdoms in the hereafter through having many wives and children don’t really lend themselves to this interpretation.” Oct 23, 11:47
- on A Recap of the Book of Mormon Studies Association Conference: “It was really good! I’m sad you weren’t able to make it.” Oct 23, 11:20
