I see the quotes in these books as not a problem, but the authors explanation and interpretation of the evidence. I have grown less impressed with Mormon Enigma than i used to be when i first read it. I have a large stack of such books i read regularly because i find polygamy and Joseph Smith issues thrown at me regularly on message boards. I am anti-polygamy in my views and unlike Tal, or his wife the subject does not bother me.

Sexuality in these 33 cases cannot be established as happening in all 33 cases. In fact Todd Compton who wrote In Sacred Lonliness expressed his doubt it happened in the marriage of Joseph Smith and Helen Mar Kimball. But Mormon Enigma is misleading because it links women’s names with Joseph Smith as if he was involved with each one of them. Todd Compton was the first scholar that atleast acknowledged the platonic possibility for some of Joseph Smiths plural marriages. Although i think he has a flawed case for some of the marriages where he thinks sexuality was included. So i usually persue the platonic explanation in cases where he does not as i disagree with thim.

I was bothered by reading such books originally. But on years of further reflection on the quotes i find i am not bothered now at all. But Ex-LDS who are stuck with these books as part of their exit story won’t be able to work through it as i did. But running into stuff you had never heard can be a problem. Some of the issues can be pretty tough nuts to crack. FAIR does pretty good at recruiting volunteers to sort through issues my ingenuiity isn’t good enough to come up with my own.

If one thinks Joseph Smith was guilty i suggest caution in not making him more guilty than he was.

I have two observations:

1. Your remark, see above, does not address the question of whether Tracy Bachman has really corroborated her husbands various rather bizarre tales about what his Stake President said to him in that staged interview. This is what is or should be the topic addressed on this thread. It is, I believe, rather common for people read a blog and get the urge to opine on some wholly unrelated issue. I suspect that Mike Parker was urging people to address the question of Talmage Bachman’s credibility. Your remarks, whatever else one might say about them, are not on topic.

2. Instead they seem to me to be banal reflections on the what follows when one discovers what one should always have known–that prophets are fallible. Of course they are, like everyone else. Why? The word “prophet” does not entail inerrancy or infallibility.

If prophets are not perfect, and many of the things that prophets have said in the past (like about blacks and other doctrine) has turned out false, why should we immediately accept anything that comes from the prophet? Shouldn’t we give it a fair amount of credence, but also think it out pretty heavily in our minds. Were the people who disagreed with Brigham Young in his era regarding Adam/God and other incorrect doctrine at fault for disagreeing? This is something I have have wondered ever since I found that people are willing to accept fallibility in the teachings of prophets.

Back to the point, please.

However, I haven’t encountered very many in the bloggernacle who think that “gay marriage” is a good idea. I’ve seen plenty in favor of civil unions. I’ve also seen some who don’t think there is a government role in regulating marriage - usually from some sort of libertarian stance.

But I’m not sure the tolerance fad runs as deep on the nacle as you are saying it does.

Here’s the particulary pertinent portion of Robinson’s article.
“The result was a synthesis of East and West, a melting pot of popular culture that was virtually worldwide. In the realm of religion, however, synthesis means compromise, and when we speak in terms of the gospel, compromise with popular beliefs means apostasy from the truth.”
AFter reading Shipp’s “Stranger in the promised Land,” I’ve recognized many ways in which cultural Mormonism has changed in the last 60 years. Some of these ways are extremely disturbing. Especially on the blogs, I’ve seen many who hide the teachings of Babylon, by couching them in (incorrectly used) gospel terms. “We should be tolerant.” “We should be loving.” Although it is true that we should be both tolerant and loving, we should not change the definition of marriage from what it has always been and what God has always intended to a viewpoint that is more pleasing to the itching ears of the world. Unfortuenately, this viewpoint is ALL TOO common on the blogs, by otherwise TBMs.

I agree that gay marriage is wrong. I just thought your argument stunk that’s all.

It is the mormoliberalbloggocrats (MLBC) who invent false gospels.
False gospel 1) Gay-Marriage is a human right.
False gospel 2) Health-Care is a human right.
False gospel 3) I, the MLBC, know better than the prophet about Mormon doctrine.

I believe you hit the nail on the head with this one. Great analysis. It sounds like your journey of faith has been much like my own.

Once again, great post.