felt that the wives of Emma thread was useful, because it included discussion of why it might have been the mistake of a flawed man, rather than a premeditated effort to commit mass adultery.
Somebody's intro thread (Welcome to FLAK, second gospel!
) is probably not the best place to discuss this, but Ima do it anyway, because this is just that kind of out-of-control madhouse.
Basically, what I'm taking away from this statement is that as long as we are discussing why it is possibly justifiable that JS or some other church leader did some unconscionable thing then it's OK. If we call it out as something just basically corrupt, then we can't talk about it.
Might as well be on the Bloggernaccle or even MAD. Seriously now. It's just a short step from there to apologetics. Why can't we just call a spade a spade here. I think it is JUST as arguable that Joseph Smith was a flawed man who ALSO made a premeditated effort to commit mass adultery. And if he was
lying to himself about why he did it, IMO that just makes him more creepy. Same goes for the whorehouse. I'm sure there are all kinda ways they could (and no doubt did) parse that to make it be OK, but the fact is, they knew about it, they allowed it, they profited from it. And that's rank
hypocrisy. Just the same as JS's "polygamy" was rank hypocrisy.