Can we have a "real" discussion about Joseph Smith and Polygamy? [Archive]

seebok

11-23-2008, 08:11 PM

This subject was one that was especially bothersome to me and one of the main reasons I ended up leaving the church.

Why did Joseph have himself sealed to girls as young as 14?

Why did he marry women that were already married?

Why were these girls/women coerced by telling them that their families' spiritual lives depended on whether or not they married Joseph?

Do you believe there really was a "destroying angel" that would have taken Joseph's life, if certain of these women had not married him?

Sure.

Some say Joseph Smith got the idea to practice polygamy from Martin Luther, who sanctioned polygamy and advocated it to Philip of Hesse and to the founder of JD's Anglican Church, King Henry the 8th. I think it's more likely he just got the idea from the clear evidence in the Bible. You are aware of course that more Evangelicals practice polygamy today than members of the Church of Jesus Christ did in their entire history, no? It's sanctioned by Baptists, Anglicans, etc., mostly in Africa.

Your ***ertions concerning marital manipulation by Joseph are obviously manufactured to paint polygamy evil and Joseph a scoundrel, but indeed throughout history, women have been taken advantage of in marriage. If you have a problem with that, perhaps if you reach out your hand I can lift you onto the bandwagon with me.

s.

Libby

11-23-2008, 09:31 PM

Sure.

Some say Joseph Smith got the idea to practice polygamy from Martin Luther, who sanctioned polygamy and advocated it to Philip of Hesse and to the founder of JD's Anglican Church, King Henry the 8th. I think it's more likely he just got the idea from the clear evidence in the Bible.

I didn't ask where he got the idea. I ***ume you believe he got it via revelation. That was my understanding, when I was LDS. (And multiple marriages to one woman at a time is hardly the same as polygamy)

You are aware of course that more Evangelicals practice polygamy today than members of the Church of Jesus Christ did in their entire history, no? It's sanctioned by Baptists, Anglicans, etc., mostly in Africa.

And this has exactly what to do with my questions?

Your ***ertions concerning marital manipulation by Joseph are obviously manufactured to paint polygamy evil and Joseph a scoundrel

Hardly. These are facts with which I struggled for a very long time and I don't appreciate you minimizing that and trying to paint me as the enemy.

but indeed throughout history, women have been taken advantage of in marriage. If you have a problem with that, perhaps if you reach out your hand I can lift you onto the bandwagon with me.

s.

Well, I'm glad you have a problem with that, as well, but do you believe Joseph took advantage of these women/girls? I'm serious, Seebok. Please don't play games with me. What was Joseph's motivation? Why did he marry already married women?

stemelbow

11-25-2008, 04:56 PM

This subject was one that was especially bothersome to me and one of the main reasons I ended up leaving the church.

Its a crazy one.

Why did Joseph have himself sealed to girls as young as 14?

To my knowledge he didn't expand upon that. It seemed rather personal, I guess. Generally he did expand a little here and there on polygamy in general. It started with his concern as he read of such among the ancients.

Why did he marry women that were already married?

I don't know if he considered it marrying them, but rather being sealed to them. Anyway, the why is a tough question. We don't know. He didn't expand on it much.

Why were these girls/women coerced by telling them that their families' spiritual lives depended on whether or not they married Joseph?

Don't know. Don't even know whether the allegations are true or not, frankly.

Do you believe there really was a "destroying angel" that would have taken Joseph's life, if certain of these women had not married him?

huh? Which ones?

love,
stem

Libby

11-26-2008, 12:58 AM

Hi Stem. Thanks for the response.

In answer to your last question:

Zina Huntington Jacobs

Zina declined Joseph’s proposal and chose to marry Henry. They were married on March 7, 1841.

Zina later wrote, that within months of her marriage to Henry, “[Joseph] sent word to me by my brother, saying, ‘Tell Zina, I put it off and put it off till an angel with a drawn sword stood by me and told me if I did not establish that principle upon the earth I would lose my position and my life’”. Joseph further explained that, “the Lord had made it known to him she was to be his celestial wife.”

Zina chose to obey this commandment and married Joseph on October 27.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/home.htm

seebok

11-26-2008, 07:10 PM

I didn't ask where he got the idea. I ***ume you believe he got it via revelation. That was my understanding, when I was LDS. (And multiple marriages to one woman at a time is hardly the same as polygamy)

And this has exactly what to do with my questions?

Hardly. These are facts with which I struggled for a very long time and I don't appreciate you minimizing that and trying to paint me as the enemy.

Well, I'm glad you have a problem with that, as well, but do you believe Joseph took advantage of these women/girls? I'm serious, Seebok. Please don't play games with me. What was Joseph's motivation? Why did he marry already married women?

I'm sorry you believe the patriarchs of the Bible were scoundrels. I'm only willing to go as far as to acknowledge that marriage is too often not well implemented and that women are often victims.

With your views, it surprises me that you can have any faith in the Bible at all. I encourage you to pray for strength and perhaps the ability to forgive if that is where you are in your life. As you grow in the Lord, my hunch is that you will be able to shift some of the blame for polygamy from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Joseph to the social conventions of the times, people like Martin Luther, and possibly even your own at***udes. And that's not an easy thing. Good thing Christ can strengthen you, but you have to want his help.

Best

s.

Libby

11-27-2008, 01:49 AM

I'm sorry you believe the patriarchs of the Bible were scoundrels. I'm only willing to go as far as to acknowledge that marriage is too often not well implemented and that women are often victims.

With your views, it surprises me that you can have any faith in the Bible at all. I encourage you to pray for strength and perhaps the ability to forgive if that is where you are in your life. As you grow in the Lord, my hunch is that you will be able to shift some of the blame for polygamy from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Joseph to the social conventions of the times, people like Martin Luther, and possibly even your own at***udes. And that's not an easy thing. Good thing Christ can strengthen you, but you have to want his help.

Best

s.

I wasn't aware that the Patriarchs of the O.T. married already married women. Would you like to give me an example of that?

(You really have no idea how much I prayed about this)

seebok

11-27-2008, 10:29 AM

I wasn't aware that the Patriarchs of the O.T. married already married women. Would you like to give me an example of that?

(You really have no idea how much I prayed about this)

You never heard of frontier divorce? That was quite a common thing in 18th century America. Like with common law marriage, the paperwork wasn't always up to today's standards. And a if a few of these frontier divorced women ended up in plural marriages, that's not really an issue. The problem you are having may be one of "presentism", projecting today's standards on people in the past who had different standards.

It tastes correct to me to understand that women have always been and are today way too frequently victims in their marriages. That has little to do with whether polygamy or monogomy is practiced. If I implied that the ins***ution of polygamy was part of the problem, let me clarify. Polygamy was so new and different in a 19th Century America with Elizabethan at***udes, its implementation was difficult and naturally lead to, you guessed it, women more frequently being victims. If I have a problem with 19th century polygamy, its the implementation of polygamy, not so much the practice of it. As I've already said, if I had a problem with the practice, I'd have to chuck the entire Bible. And I don't want to be in your new position.;)

On your other point, I regret to inform you that I do not have copies of Abraham's multiple marriage certificates. But indeed, the patriarchs did have wives plural. I pulled this up in about a minute.

Gen. 31: 17
17 ¶ Then Jacob rose up, and set his sons and his wives upon camels;

Evans like to try to make the case that these others were not really wives. Clearly they are just trying to contrive reality to fit their current worldview.

***uming for a nano-second that there were no plural marriages among the OT patriarchs, are you really saying that had Joseph and Brigham and others just had concubines or heifers for breeding purposes like the OT Patriarchs did, you'd be o.k. with that? If this is what you are saying, I'm glad I'm not an Evangelical -- children have always deserved to be born into and raised within a family unit, by a man and his wife. This is how it was among the Patriarchs and the early Saints, despite any "implementation" problems or inequities they may have experienced with non-traditional marriage.

Best

s.

Libby

11-28-2008, 12:45 AM

If I have a problem with 19th century polygamy, its the implementation of polygamy, not so much the practice of it. As I've already said, if I had a problem with the practice, I'd have to chuck the entire Bible. And I don't want to be in your new position.

You are exactly in my position. I don't have a problem with polygamy, per se. When I joined the church, I knew that polygamy had been practiced in the early church. I didn't have a problem with it, but my perception of it was very different from what I later learned to be the reality of it. So, like you, my problem is with the implementation. That's why I have asked about Joseph's marriages to very young girls and to other men's wives. And, also, about the way in which these girls/women were induced into marrying him. It seems to me that the "implementation", as you call it, might have something to do with whether or not one can accept that this was actually from God.

My (very naive) perception of polygamy in the early church had Joseph marrying single, eligible women, closer to his own age...or perhaps women who had lost their husbands in the struggles of the early church and in need of care. (This is actually what the church teaches about polygamy, if and when it comes up at all, and I believed it).. So, excuse me for being upset when I finally learned the truth. :(

seebok

11-28-2008, 01:28 PM

You are exactly in my position. I don't have a problem with polygamy, per se. When I joined the church, I knew that polygamy had been practiced in the early church. I didn't have a problem with it, but my perception of it was very different from what I later learned to be the reality of it. So, like you, my problem is with the implementation. That's why I have asked about Joseph's marriages to very young girls and to other men's wives. And, also, about the way in which these girls/women were induced into marrying him. It seems to me that the "implementation", as you call it, might have something to do with whether or not one can accept that this was actually from God.

My (very naive) perception of polygamy in the early church had Joseph marrying single, eligible women, closer to his own age...or perhaps women who had lost their husbands in the struggles of the early church and in need of care. (This is actually what the church teaches about polygamy, if and when it comes up at all, and I believed it).. So, excuse me for being upset when I finally learned the truth. :(

Well Libs, I don't think you need to be brain dead to have missed certain realities and ***ociated sensational representations of the truths about polygamy as practiced in the 19th century Church of Jesus Christ. And I don't think anyone needs to be faulted for not sticking your nose in all those fine details and sensationalizations.

The fact of the matter is that it's nearly universally known that members of the Church, including at the highest levels, practiced polygamy. It was publicly announced in 1852. And the resources Compton used to document and develop commentary on Joseph's experience have been available beginning in the same timeframe. Compton's book BTW is what the critics often go to.

If this troubles you, like I said, to be consistent you need to be just as troubled by the Bible. Frankly, it's o.k. to have these kinds of questions and even doubts. Doubt is the opposite of faith and in the lives of those who live by faith, doubt is necessarily also present. If you have a hunger to tip the scales from doubt back to faith, I recommend this very balanced paper which a friend of mine wrote:

http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Polygamy_Prophets_and_Prevarication.pdf

And if you are satisfied remaining in an Evangelical free-for-all, do nothing and remain blissful in a movement that can not be criticized for any specific thing because it takes no stand -- or better stated, all stands. In instances where for instance the Evangelical church practices polygamy, the Evan apologist points to others who don't. And where the meaninglessness of life becomes apparent to to those enmeshed in Calvinism, they point to Arminianism. And then when God's sovereignty needs bolstered, those same people point back to Calvinism. You can live your life conveniently avoiding the really troubling issue in Evangelicalism, like water off the back of a duck.

In the Church of Jesus Christ you have an opportunity to take a stand for faith, warts and all.

best

s.

Libby

11-29-2008, 01:43 AM

I spent quite a bit of time in a response to you, Peter, but when I went to post it, I had been logged out. This board seems to log you out if your are not active for a few minutes. <sigh>

This is what I wrote (in essence - the short version).

First of all, I appreciate the link, but I had already read that, before I left the church. It was not very satisfying...but I'll admit, at that point, I was probably very difficult to satisfy. I didn't find his arguments relating Joseph's polygamy to "civil disobendience" very compelling...especially when he started comparing it to hiding Holocaust victims. But, when I have some time, I will go back and read it again. It's been a couple of years.

Secondly, I do not blame anyone in the church for my ignorance on any subject. I take total responsibility for that. I read the Book of Mormon and had an "experience" with it, which lead me, heart first, into the church. My head followed much later.

Thirdly, (if that's a word :)) I have been attending an Evangelical Church for the past year and half, but right now I am not attending any church. I seem to always run up against the "really troubling issues" at some point or other. That's one of the reasons I stayed away from religious ins***utions for so many years, before my conversion to the LDS Church.

Lastly, I just wanted to say something that I have told a few of my LDS friends, recently. I am not an enemy of the LDS Church. I started down that path, shortly after I left the church, but it was not right for me. That's not to say it's not "right", at all...just not for me.

stemelbow

11-29-2008, 09:39 AM

Hi Stem. Thanks for the response.

In answer to your last question:

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/home.htm

Are you pulling a JD? I get what you mean but it appears you are re-***igning the meaning of hte quote to something else, after reading your previous comments.

love,
stem

Libby

11-29-2008, 04:54 PM

Are you pulling a JD? I get what you mean but it appears you are re-***igning the meaning of hte quote to something else, after reading your previous comments.

love,
stem

I don't understand what you mean. You asked where Joseph was threatened with death by an angel. I showed you. I think he also told that story to Emma.

stemelbow

11-30-2008, 09:04 AM

I don't understand what you mean. You asked where Joseph was threatened with death by an angel. I showed you. I think he also told that story to Emma.

my question was which ones. I see now your initial comments were a misstating. No big deal. I guess you just got a little carried away, like many do.

love,
stem

Libby

12-01-2008, 01:42 AM

Stem, I'm really not following you. I misstated something? What?

seebok

12-01-2008, 12:34 PM

Hi Libby

Secondly, I do not blame anyone in the church for my ignorance on any subject. I take total responsibility for that. I read the Book of Mormon and had an "experience" with it, which lead me, heart first, into the church. My head followed much later.

The Church of Jesus Christ teaches a "Holy Ghost first approach". If you now place your "head" first over the Holy Ghost, you missed an important epistemological lesson, namely, "reason" serves an important "ministerial" function, just not the "magisterial" one Father JD preaches.

There are many good reasons not to follow Father JD in his prideful error which elevates reason over and is dismissive of the Holy Ghost. I think the following general points adapted from scholar William Lane Craig are worth pointing out to you:

1) Following Father JD would deny the right of true faith to all who lack the ability, time, or opportunity to understand and ***ess the arguments and evidence. The consequences would no doubt consign untold millions of people who have faith in Christ to unbelief.
2) If one embraces Father JD's approach, those who have been presented with more cogent intellectual arguments against Christ than for him would have an excuse before God for their unbelief.
3) JD's view creates a sort of intellectual elite, a priesthood of philosophers and historians, who will dictate to the m***es of humanity whether or not it is rational for them to believe in the gospel. But surely faith is available to everyone why, in response to the Spirit's drawing, calls upon the name of the Lord.
4) JD's approach subjects faith to a vagaries of reason and the shifting sands of evidence, making Christian faith rational in one generation and irrational in the next.

I just don't understand why JD demeans the the Holy Ghost!? The Holy Ghost is our veridical evidence. JD's intellectual reason for belief which he sells here on WM is just pride.

Lastly, I just wanted to say something that I have told a few of my LDS friends, recently. I am not an enemy of the LDS Church. I started down that path, shortly after I left the church, but it was not right for me. That's not to say it's not "right", at all...just not for me.

D&C 6: 22
22 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
23 Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God?

best

s.

stemelbow

12-01-2008, 05:13 PM

Stem, I'm really not following you. I misstated something? What?

You originally asked,

"Do you believe there really was a "destroying angel" that would have taken Joseph's life, if certain of these women had not married him? "

I asked which ones. Your quote doesn't say anything about certain of these women not marrying him. So it appears you misstated or misunderstood.

love,
stem

Jude 3

12-01-2008, 08:38 PM

Jude 3

12-01-2008, 09:00 PM

Are you pulling a JD? I get what you mean but it appears you are re-***igning the meaning of hte quote to something else, after reading your previous comments.

love,
stem

Nothing but diversionary tactics by the Elbow!

Poor Joseph! He had the pure heart of a monogamist, but the cruel and mean LDS god send an angel to force him to sleep with all those teenaged girls and also to lie to Emma about it.

"The angel forced me to.....honest, Emma!"

Amazing how quickly Joseph capitulated to the "angel's instructions." And he "capitulated" frequently, too!

What a guy!

Jude 3

seebok

12-01-2008, 09:20 PM

So, how many wives did Martin Luther have?

Jude 3

the ole "stinking bag o' maggots" advised the practice. I'm not so sure he himself could have gotten any additional give his self description :D

Thus spake Martin Luther of himself, in his Sincere Admonition to all Christians to Guard Against Insurrection and Rebellion (1522), in Luther's Works (English Translation), volume 45. 70.

s.

Libby

12-02-2008, 02:25 AM

You originally asked,

"Do you believe there really was a "destroying angel" that would have taken Joseph's life, if certain of these women had not married him? "

I asked which ones. Your quote doesn't say anything about certain of these women not marrying him. So it appears you misstated or misunderstood.

love,
stem

When you asked "which ones?" did you mean which ones did not marry him? I thought you meant "which ones did he tell of the destroying angel"...which is why I gave you an example.

Libby

12-02-2008, 02:50 AM

The Holy Ghost is our veridical evidence. -Seekbok

I agree with this, but how do you explain those who say they have a Holy Spirit witness that the LDS Church is not true? How you know who is hearing/feeling the "real" Holy Spirit?

stemelbow

12-02-2008, 06:26 PM

When you asked "which ones?" did you mean which ones did not marry him? I thought you meant "which ones did he tell of the destroying angel"...which is why I gave you an example.

You said "certain of these women", so I asked which ones. So which ones, if that is what you truly meant, are you talking about specifically?

love,
stem

stemelbow

12-02-2008, 06:27 PM

I agree with this, but how do you explain those who say they have a Holy Spirit witness that the LDS Church is not true? How you know who is hearing/feeling the "real" Holy Spirit?

Why question the Holy Spirit's witness if another mortal human contradicts what He witnesses to you? There is no reason to put another man's claims on the same level as revelation from God. That'd be silly wouldn't it?

love,
stem

seebok

12-02-2008, 09:10 PM

I agree with this, but how do you explain those who say they have a Holy Spirit witness that the LDS Church is not true? How you know who is hearing/feeling the "real" Holy Spirit?

I can not look into the heart of another. Hence I focus on a reality/experience I am familiar with. What I know is that the gift of the Holy Ghost is sweet to the taste and that others can enjoy that same sweetness. Everyone can experience that and everyone has the opportunity to align accordingly or not.

s.

Libby

12-03-2008, 10:29 PM

Why question the Holy Spirit's witness if another mortal human contradicts what He witnesses to you? There is no reason to put another man's claims on the same level as revelation from God. That'd be silly wouldn't it?

love,
stem

It would be, yes, if you knew for sure that witness was from the Holy Spirit.

Libby

12-03-2008, 11:17 PM

Hi Libby

The Church of Jesus Christ teaches a "Holy Ghost first approach". If you now place your "head" first over the Holy Ghost, you missed an important epistemological lesson, namely, "reason" serves an important "ministerial" function, just not the "magisterial" one Father JD preaches.

There are many good reasons not to follow Father JD in his prideful error which elevates reason over and is dismissive of the Holy Ghost. I think the following general points adapted from scholar William Lane Craig are worth pointing out to you:

1) Following Father JD would deny the right of true faith to all who lack the ability, time, or opportunity to understand and ***ess the arguments and evidence. The consequences would no doubt consign untold millions of people who have faith in Christ to unbelief.
2) If one embraces Father JD's approach, those who have been presented with more cogent intellectual arguments against Christ than for him would have an excuse before God for their unbelief.
3) JD's view creates a sort of intellectual elite, a priesthood of philosophers and historians, who will dictate to the m***es of humanity whether or not it is rational for them to believe in the gospel. But surely faith is available to everyone why, in response to the Spirit's drawing, calls upon the name of the Lord.
4) JD's approach subjects faith to a vagaries of reason and the shifting sands of evidence, making Christian faith rational in one generation and irrational in the next.

I just don't understand why JD demeans the the Holy Ghost!? The Holy Ghost is our veridical evidence. JD's intellectual reason for belief which he sells here on WM is just pride.

D&C 6: 22
22 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if you desire a further witness, cast your mind upon the night that you cried unto me in your heart, that you might know concerning the truth of these things.
23 Did I not speak peace to your mind concerning the matter? What greater witness can you have than from God?

best

s.

I want to come back to this, Peter.

I don't think anyone (Father JD or myself) intends to demean the Holy Spirit. And I know that neither of us believe that faith in Christ is developed entirely from "reason". But, to be reasonable, reason must play a role, otherwise, we can easily mistake error for truth, yes? The Spirit testifies of Jesus Christ. That is his main role. When it comes to other men, it seems to me that caution must be the rule, especially when following supposed prophets or people who claim to know what is truth for the whole world. People like Tony Alamo. You have a deep skepticism of him, because of things you have learned about him. How is that different from my skepticism of Joseph Smith (because of things I have learned about him)?

Jude 3

12-04-2008, 02:00 AM

the ole "stinking bag o' maggots" advised the practice. I'm not so sure he himself could have gotten any additional give his self description :D

Thus spake Martin Luther of himself, in his Sincere Admonition to all Christians to Guard Against Insurrection and Rebellion (1522), in Luther's Works (English Translation), volume 45. 70.

s.

So you are blaming Mormon polygamy on Martin Luther who you admit did not have a bevy of wives like Smith, suggesting that the reason why he was not a polygamist was because he considered himself to be an old stinking bag of maggots? Amazing self-deprecation, if what you claim is true.

Anything to take the focus off Joseph Smith, right?

I'll have to admit that one does not find Joseph Smith referring to himself using self-deprecation of any type, because he considered himself to be a god and greater than everyone, including Jesus!

"God made Aaron to be the mouthpiece for the children of Israel, and He will make me be god to you in His stead, and the Elders to be mouth for me; and if you don't like it you must lump it." Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith by Fielding, p. 363

I am a lawyer; I am a big lawyer and comprehend heaven, earth and hell, to bring forth knowledge that shall cover up all lawyers, doctors and other big bodies." History of the Church, Vol. 5, p. 289

"Don't employ lawyers, or pay them money for their knowledge, for I have learned that they don't know anything. I know more than they all." History of the Church, Vol. 5, p. 467

"I combat the errors of the ages; I meet the violence of mobs; I cope with illegal proceedings from executive authority; I cut the gordian knot of powers, and I solve mathematical problems of universities, with truth-diamond truth; and God is my right hand man." History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 78

But no opinion of himself could beat the citation for which Smith is most famous:

"If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them....I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, not JESUS ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of JESUS ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." History of the Church, Vol. 6, pg. 408-409.

Vlad III

12-04-2008, 12:19 PM

I'll have to admit that one does not find Joseph Smith referring to himself using self-deprecation of any type, because he considered himself to be a god and greater than everyone, including Jesus!

But no opinion of himself could beat the citation for which Smith is most famous:

"If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of a mountain and crow like a rooster: I shall always beat them....I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, not JESUS ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of JESUS ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." History of the Church, Vol. 6, pg. 408-409.

To be fair, Joseph Smith never said he was greater than Jesus. He said he did a greater work than Jesus. Any student of the Bible will know that Jesus himself said there would be those who would come and do greater works than he did. Do you believe the Bible?

Trinity

12-04-2008, 02:02 PM

He said he did a greater work than Jesus.

I think we should let the world to decide if Joseph Smith had done a greater work than Jesus. I am not very hot about any self-proclamation.

John Lennon has also said something alike.

"Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue with that; I'm right and I will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first - rock 'n' roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."

Few weeks ago the Catholic Church forgave him for this remark. It was a statement from an inexperienced young man. This is why he was forgiven.

Trinity

stemelbow

12-04-2008, 03:25 PM

It would be, yes, if you knew for sure that witness was from the Holy Spirit.

Would you suggest that you are one who says the Holy Spirit declared to you that the LDS Church is not authored by God?

love,
stem

Vlad III

12-04-2008, 05:53 PM

I think we should let the world to decide if Joseph Smith had done a greater work than Jesus. I am not very hot about any self-proclamation.

John Lennon has also said something alike.

"Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue with that; I'm right and I will be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first - rock 'n' roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me."

Few weeks ago the Catholic Church forgave him for this remark. It was a statement from an inexperienced young man. This is why he was forgiven.

Trinity

He was forgiven by the Catholic Church because he was young? I would've thought someone would be forgiven because that is what Jesus taught us to to; forgive all men.

Trinity

12-04-2008, 06:14 PM

Hello Vlad III,

He was forgiven by the Catholic Church because he was young? I would've thought someone would be forgiven because that is what Jesus taught us to to; forgive all men.

"The remark by John Lennon, which triggered deep indignation mainly in the United States, after many years sounds only like a 'boast' by a young working-cl*** Englishman faced with unexpected success, after growing up in the legend of Elvis and rock and roll," Vatican daily Osservatore Romano said."

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=30769

Trinity

Libby

12-04-2008, 09:09 PM

Would you suggest that you are one who says the Holy Spirit declared to you that the LDS Church is not authored by God?

love,
stem

To be honest, I couldn't tell you that, for certain, right now...no.

stemelbow

12-08-2008, 06:42 PM

To be honest, I couldn't tell you that, for certain, right now...no.

To be honest I think its great you admit that.

love,
stem

Libby

12-12-2008, 03:05 AM

To be honest I think its great you admit that.

love,
stem

To be honest, I was going through a very tough time, spiritually, when I wrote that. I was even considering going back to the LDS church. But, that would not have been right for me and I do believe the Holy Spirit was very instrumental in helping me see that.

nrajeff

12-12-2008, 09:00 AM

Libs, thanks for the note welcoming me back to that other place. (They won't let me remain for long, though.) I couldn't figure out how to send you a reply.

Libby

12-12-2008, 04:29 PM

You're welcome. I was very surprised to see you posting there again, as I thought your ban had been permanent....but pleasantly surprised. :) I know clay was missing you, as well.

They don't have private messaging over there, anymore, but you can click on the person's name and leave a message that way. Anyone can read it, though.

Russ

12-13-2008, 03:24 PM

This subject was one that was especially bothersome to me and one of the main reasons I ended up leaving the church.

Why did Joseph have himself sealed to girls as young as 14?

Why did he marry women that were already married?

Why were these girls/women coerced by telling them that their families' spiritual lives depended on whether or not they married Joseph?

Do you believe there really was a "destroying angel" that would have taken Joseph's life, if certain of these women had not married him?

Hi Lib Lib! Fancy meeting you here. I just signed up today. (Fancy new board here at WM.org. Much better than the old one. Much better.)

I think what you'll notice about the patriarch's polygamy is that it is a) tolerated of God and not commanded and b) mentioned as something that people did. It's merely an historical account of the actions of people; just as other things which people did such as getting divorces... out of the hardness of their heart and God tolerates that too. But for how long?

Nothing good ever comes from polygamy. It produces God-given jealously in the hearts of the women who will naturally compete for the affection of the husband.

It's ill and causes illness in those who practice it.

Libby

12-13-2008, 08:12 PM

Hiya Russ. :)

I agree. I don't believe God ever "commanded" or even condoned polygamy (what an awful ins***ution).

nrajeff

12-14-2008, 12:12 AM

I agree. I don't believe God ever "commanded" or even condoned polygamy (what an awful ins***ution).

--Well, I don't believe God ever commanded Trinitarianism.... :)

Libby

12-14-2008, 01:45 AM

--Well, I don't believe God ever commanded Trinitarianism.... :)

lol

Well, I don't believe he did, either. He has always been that way. :)

Russ

12-14-2008, 09:27 AM

Well, I'm glad you have a problem with that, as well, but do you believe Joseph took advantage of these women/girls? I'm serious, Seebok. Please don't play games with me. What was Joseph's motivation? Why did he marry already married women?

That's a good question.

Another one like it is I wonder why the LDS church doesn't readily make this known to even its own members?

The LDS church even downplays polygamy in general to the general public.

While on tour of the Beehive House in 2005, Brigham Young's former abode in Salt Lake City, Utah, a young female from Russia told me a blatant lie. (Whether she is responsible for it or is she uninformed and simply parroting what the LDS church told her to say, I don't know.) When I queried her regarding the reason for polygamy in the early LDS church, she stated that Brigham Young married women who unfortunately lost their husbands on the trek west as to "care" for them. That doesn't align with what we know about early Mormon polygamy and D&C 132 and it doesn't align with Joseph Smith's reasons for threatening Emma with "****ation" if she didn't accept The Principle.

One doesn't have to marry a widow to "care" for her. All one has to do is provide food, clothing, shelter and friends. It's a bad excuse to say that Brigham was caring for them by marrying multiple wives.

seebok

12-14-2008, 01:12 PM

Hiya Russ. :)

I agree. I don't believe God ever "commanded" or even condoned polygamy (what an awful ins***ution).

You can certainly express severe discomfort with polygamy. Everyone who practiced it had that feeling to some extent. What you can't do is deny the reality of the OT where God GAVE additional wives to the patriarchs. But if you insist on denying that reality, Judaism and Christianity would logically be unattractive to you. Perhaps Zoroastrianism might be a good option for you and Russ, I mean, if you want to be consistent and all? ;-)

Best

s.

seebok

12-14-2008, 01:23 PM

I want to come back to this, Peter.

I don't think anyone (Father JD or myself) intends to demean the Holy Spirit.

I believe you are right, but that is indeed what they do.

I look forward to hearing the logic you have embraced(?) concerning "reason" in the magisterial role. Tell me why that makes sense to you in light if the points I layed out above.

People like Tony Alamo. You have a deep skepticism of him, because of things you have learned about him. How is that different from my skepticism of Joseph Smith (because of things I have learned about him)?

Then why do you embrace people like Alamo, and if not him, murderers like Martin Luther (father of the Holocaust, not to mention the murderer of 10,000 of my Saxon people), John Calvin (Murderer of John Servetus and dozens of "witches"), JD's very own King Henry (adulterous murderer of his own wife), or Mike MacIntosh (Russ' Jesus Freak drug dealer leader)?

These alternatives tasted good to you?

s.

Libby

12-14-2008, 02:43 PM

That's a good question.

Another one like it is I wonder why the LDS church doesn't readily make this known to even its own members?

The LDS church even downplays polygamy in general to the general public.

While on tour of the Beehive House in 2005, Brigham Young's former abode in Salt Lake City, Utah, a young female from Russia told me a blatant lie. (Whether she is responsible for it or is she uninformed and simply parroting what the LDS church told her to say, I don't know.) When I queried her regarding the reason for polygamy in the early LDS church, she stated that Brigham Young married women who unfortunately lost their husbands on the trek west as to "care" for them. That doesn't align with what we know about early Mormon polygamy and D&C 132 and it doesn't align with Joseph Smith's reasons for threatening Emma with "****ation" if she didn't accept The Principle.

One doesn't have to marry a widow to "care" for her. All one has to do is provide food, clothing, shelter and friends. It's a bad excuse to say that Brigham was caring for them by marrying multiple wives.

She didn't lie to you, Russ. That's one of the reasons given for the practice of polygamy in the early church.

Libby

12-14-2008, 02:50 PM

I believe you are right, but that is indeed what they do.

I look forward to hearing the logic you have embraced(?) concerning "reason" in the magisterial role. Tell me why that makes sense to you in light if the points I layed out above.

Then why do you embrace people like Alamo, and if not him, murderers like Martin Luther (father of the Holocaust, not to mention the murderer of 10,000 of my Saxon people), John Calvin (Murderer of John Servetus and dozens of "witches"), JD's very own King Henry (adulterous murderer of his own wife), or Mike MacIntosh (Russ' Jesus Freak drug dealer leader)?

These alternatives tasted good to you?

s.

I didn't embrace any of those people, Peter. I embraced Jesus Christ, alone. He is the one I follow. Not Luther, not Smith, not any man.

As for putting "reason" in a "magisterial" role, neither have I done that. The Holy Spirit still guides me. But, we have God-given "reason" for a purpose. We are not supposed to set that aside in favor of "feelings" that may or may NOT be a manifestation of the Spirit.

Russ

12-14-2008, 03:11 PM

She didn't lie to you, Russ. That's one of the reasons given for the practice of polygamy in the early church.

It's a reason which doesn't square with what we know of Joseph's "revelation" and it's a reason which doesn't square with reason in general.

Imagine with me.

Imagine being a frontier woman in a small band of travelers who lost her husband on the trek to Salt Lake. You have a poorly constructed handcart, a few rations and barely survived the winter.

Upon your arrival in Salt Lake, Brigham Young, out of the goodness of his heart, offers to care for you by marrying you.

Lib Lib, do you respond to Brigham, "Thank you, kind sir," and become a sister wife, or do you respond, "May I please just have some food, clothes and a place to live? What's with the proposal?"

Perhaps you're right that she didn't knowingly lie to me. Perhaps she herself accepted the LDS answer to p*** onto others.

The LDS church, however, is indeed lying as to the reason for polygamy. D&C 132 is the reason.

Russ

12-14-2008, 03:13 PM

I didn't embrace any of those people, Peter. I embraced Jesus Christ, alone. He is the one I follow. Not Luther, not Smith, not any man.

As for putting "reason" in a "magisterial" role, neither have I done that. The Holy Spirit still guides me. But, we have God-given "reason" for a purpose. We are not supposed to set that aside in favor of "feelings" that may or may NOT be a manifestation of the Spirit.

Amen, sista! :D

Russ

12-14-2008, 03:27 PM

Seebok, if God supports polygamy and is fully behind it, then why did "Everyone who practiced it had that feeling {an awful ins***ution} to some extent?"

Indeed, it is awful. And destructive.

God tolerates (puts up with) that which we as humans sometimes deem as good and necessary.

"There is a way which seems right to a man but the end is death."

There's your free agency.

stemelbow

12-17-2008, 05:03 AM

To be honest, I was going through a very tough time, spiritually, when I wrote that. I was even considering going back to the LDS church. But, that would not have been right for me and I do believe the Holy Spirit was very instrumental in helping me see that.

Since so many folks who most consider anti-Mormon whine the mantra "how do you know it was the Holy Spirit?" I am tempted to ask the same. But since describing the leading of the Holy Spirit is no as easy as it may seem I'll leave that alone. I thought I'd just comment since you speak as most LDS.

love,
stem

stemelbow

12-17-2008, 05:07 AM

I didn't embrace any of those people, Peter. I embraced Jesus Christ, alone. He is the one I follow. Not Luther, not Smith, not any man.

Embracing the teachings of Christ, to some, is embracing man's teachings. It depends on how you want to view it. You seem to imply that accepting LDs teaching is embracing Smith. Well it could just as easily be said that accepting evangelicalism, protestantism, catholocism, is embracing man's teachings--Paul's teachings, James' teachings, Augustine's teachings, etc.

As for putting "reason" in a "magisterial" role, neither have I done that. The Holy Spirit still guides me. But, we have God-given "reason" for a purpose. We are not supposed to set that aside in favor of "feelings" that may or may NOT be a manifestation of the Spirit.

I'm curious, wherein did Christ teach you that our reason is supposed to supplant manifestations of the Spirit?

love,
stem

Russ

12-17-2008, 08:58 AM

--Well, I don't believe God ever commanded Trinitarianism.... :)

Well, I don't believe God ever commanded people to be democrats. But now we have one as president! (just kidding)

Just goes to show ya. :-)

Men do funny things, like believe polygamy is a "revelation from God."

P.S. I don't remember the guy's name. A pro football player once said (I think he was joking) that he would consider becoming Mormon just for the polygamy. I guess that was something which he thought would have been just wonderful!

I suppose sleeping with different women was something he was already doing. It was on his mind, obviously.

Russ

12-17-2008, 10:24 AM

Were your questions addressed to your satisfaction by LDS who post on this forum?

Why did Joseph have himself sealed to girls as young as 14?

Why did he marry women that were already married?

Why were these girls/women coerced by telling them that their families' spiritual lives depended on whether or not they married Joseph?

Do you believe there really was a "destroying angel" that would have taken Joseph's life, if certain of these women had not married him?

nrajeff

12-17-2008, 01:34 PM

Well, I don't believe God ever commanded people to be democrats. But now we have one as president! (just kidding)

---Yeah, and God never commanded people to be radical Evangelicals, but some of you tried pretty hard to smear Romney in order to put a radical Evan in the White House. Ended up with McCain vs. Obama, and then McCain lost. Didn't work out so well.

Men do funny things, like believe polygamy is a "revelation from God."

--Or believe "Commit genocide against the Amalekites, including their infants" is a "revelation from God." Yes, people are just funny that way, aren't they?

I suppose sleeping with different women was something he was already doing. It was on his mind, obviously.
---Speaking of Evans who sleep with different women, er, people, I see that Ted Haggard, former president over 30 million Evangelicals, is back, preaching and selling insurance. (AP article, 11/29/08) And didn't the Vp of the A.A.E. just resign or get canned for his beliefs regarding who it's okay to sleep with? Trouble in Evanville, it seems. :)

Russ

12-17-2008, 01:50 PM

---Yeah, and God never commanded people to be radical Evangelicals, but some of you tried pretty hard to smear Romney in order to put a radical Evan in the White House. Ended up with McCain vs. Obama, and then McCain lost. Didn't work out so well.

--Or believe "Commit genocide against the Amalekites, including their infants" is a "revelation from God." Yes, people are just funny that way, aren't they?

---Speaking of Evans who sleep with different women, er, people, I see that Ted Haggard, former president over 30 million Evangelicals, is back, preaching and selling insurance. (AP article, 11/29/08) And didn't the Vp of the A.A.E. just resign or get canned for his beliefs regarding who it's okay to sleep with? Trouble in Evanville, it seems. :)

You have a lot of topics going on there.

"Can we have a "real" discussion about Joseph Smith and Polygamy?" :D

Perhaps your topics are better suited for the politics boards, evangelical immorality boards and/or genocide boards.

There are probably lots of people out there willing to discuss those things.

If I think about Lib's questions, one comes to mind.

Why did Joseph Smith marry other men's wives?

Trinity

12-17-2008, 01:56 PM

Speaking of Evans who sleep with different women, er, people, I see that Ted Haggard, former president over 30 million Evangelicals, is back, preaching and selling insurance. (AP article, 11/29/08) And didn't the Vp of the A.A.E. just resign or get canned for his beliefs regarding who it's okay to sleep with? Trouble in Evanville, it seems. :)

1) Ted Haggard is gay and not a womanizer.
2) He has the right to sell insurance, to have a ***, and to provide for his family.
3) He is a fake preacher who is trying to recover from his scandal. He should stay in the insurance.

Trinity

Libby

12-18-2008, 03:01 AM

Since so many folks who most consider anti-Mormon whine the mantra "how do you know it was the Holy Spirit?" I am tempted to ask the same. But since describing the leading of the Holy Spirit is no as easy as it may seem I'll leave that alone. I thought I'd just comment since you speak as most LDS.

love,
stem

That would have been a fair question. Some of it has to do with not getting answers to questions, like I have asked on this thread. I'm sure some will consider that just a blatant lack of faith on my part. But, it's difficult to have faith in someone whose strange/possibly very immoral behavior cannot be explained.

Libby

12-18-2008, 03:06 AM

Russ

12-18-2008, 09:11 AM

No............

A chief complaint of Mormons is that their faith is misrepresented and misunderstood.

And when asked pointed questions they don't answer those questions.

A phenomenon.

nrajeff

12-18-2008, 02:41 PM

You have a lot of topics going on there.

---Well, there is a lot going on in the world of Evangelicalism. It's a fascinating cult. You should do some research into it when you have time, since you are in an anti-cult "ministry."

Perhaps your topics are better suited for the politics boards, evangelical immorality boards and/or genocide boards.

---There is an evangelical immorality board here? Who in their right mind and claiming to be a Christian, would create a board sensationalizing the alleged immorality of other believers? Oh, yeah, that's right....

nrajeff

12-18-2008, 02:43 PM

1) Ted Haggard is gay and not a womanizer.

---Yes, good point, and that's why I used the term "sleeping with different er, people" :)

2) He has the right to sell insurance, to have a ***, and to provide for his family.
3) He is a fake preacher who is trying to recover from his scandal. He should stay in the insurance. Trinity

---I agree, although some have pointed out that selling the gospel is, in a way, selling fire insurance--insurance from the fires of hell... :)

Russ

12-18-2008, 02:57 PM

---Well, there is a lot going on in the world of Evangelicalism. It's a fascinating cult. You should do some research into it when you have time, since you are in an anti-cult "ministry."

---There is an evangelical immorality board here? Who in their right mind and claiming to be a Christian, would create a board sensationalizing the alleged immorality of other believers? Oh, yeah, that's right....

And a one, and a two, and a three....

Can we have a "real" discussion about Joseph Smith and Polygamy?

Libs has some questions for you.

stemelbow

12-18-2008, 05:38 PM

That would have been a fair question. Some of it has to do with not getting answers to questions, like I have asked on this thread. I'm sure some will consider that just a blatant lack of faith on my part. But, it's difficult to have faith in someone whose strange/possibly very immoral behavior cannot be explained.

I answered each one of your questions that started this thread. Straight up.

You don't have to have faith in Joseph himself.

love,
stem

Russ

12-18-2008, 06:50 PM

I answered each one of your questions that started this thread. Straight up.

You don't have to have faith in Joseph himself.

love,
stem

When I asked Libby: were your questions addressed to your satisfaction by LDS who post on this forum?

She wrote, "No."

That's an unsatisfied customer who wants her money back. :D

And she wants to talk to the manager, now.

(Sorry, it's the customer service guy in me.)

Libby

12-18-2008, 08:59 PM

Stem, you did try to answer my questions (and I appreciate that) but your answers were, basically, "I don't know".

And then, Seebok, in his usual ploy, simply tried to divert the argument to Luther and other historical Christians who supposedly did similarly awful things. That doesn't really explain Joseph. It explains why Seebok might not want to follow Luther, but it doesn't explain why he is following Joseph.

Libby

12-18-2008, 09:03 PM

I get so tired of these circular discussions. Just tell me to put on a blindfold and follow! Bah!

Russ

12-19-2008, 09:31 AM

I get so tired of these circular discussions. Just tell me to put on a blindfold and follow! Bah!

lol, Libby!

Exactly. 'Round and 'round. No direct answers.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/rje0075l.jpg

stemelbow

12-19-2008, 09:55 AM

Stem, you did try to answer my questions (and I appreciate that) but your answers were, basically, "I don't know".

I know people whine about things like that. And they complain no one answered. I did my best. Since no one knows JS's heart your questions were unanswerable. Of course that's the easiest way to reject truth, I'd say. Cynically complain about the servants of God as though you know their motives.

And then, Seebok, in his usual ploy, simply tried to divert the argument to Luther and other historical Christians who supposedly did similarly awful things. That doesn't really explain Joseph. It explains why Seebok might not want to follow Luther, but it doesn't explain why he is following Joseph.

Too bad...I'm pretty sad. I think he likes to point out the hypocrisy in people's complaints more often than not.

love,
stem

stemelbow

12-19-2008, 09:57 AM

When I asked Libby: were your questions addressed to your satisfaction by LDS who post on this forum?

She wrote, "No."

That's an unsatisfied customer who wants her money back. :D

And she wants to talk to the manager, now.

(Sorry, it's the customer service guy in me.)

Anyone can whine about people's answers and say, "I don't like your answers". You have done it quite often and thus you're stuck pressing with the same garbage you did 5 years ago--getting no where. I really wish you would drop your anger and learn to accept the truths of God as restored in these latter days. It'd be nice, but I realize that ain't gonna happen merely because I wish it. You have set up quite a defense against the truth. It ain't up to me to pierce through your defense.

love,
stem

stemelbow

12-19-2008, 10:00 AM

I get so tired of these circular discussions. Just tell me to put on a blindfold and follow! Bah!

Well do your best not to enter into them...then. Follow Christ and stop looking at all the other deflections around. You can call that a blindfold if you want. I don't.

love,
stem

Russ

12-19-2008, 10:18 AM

Since no one knows JS's heart your questions were unanswerable. Of course that's the easiest way to reject truth, I'd say. Cynically complain about the servants of God as though you know their motives.

Any man who goes after other men's wives has a motive problem.

Joseph Smith took 11 wives of other men while they were still married.

This rightly bothers Libby. I wonder if you might explain to her why she shouldn't be troubled with such acts.

For me, "you shall know them by their fruits" comes to mind.

P.S. Why do you charge Libby with being cynical in her honest questions. Especially since you apparently believe that one cannot know the heart of another and their motives. You give that much slack to Joe Smith. Why not Libby?

stemelbow

12-19-2008, 10:40 AM

P.S. Why do you charge Libby with being cynical in her honest questions. Especially since you apparently believe that one cannot know the heart of another and their motives. You give that much slack to Joe Smith. Why not Libby?

No. I meant to suggest she can if she wants. I do not know her heart...true.

love,
stem

Russ

12-19-2008, 08:46 PM

No. I meant to suggest she can if she wants. I do not know her heart...true.

love,
stem

The fruits of a man's heart are sometimes found in his insistence that his celestial glory will be added to by marrying other men's wives.

Is this the type of man whom you think is inspired of God?

Smith - a charismatic man with a very good imagination (Book of Mormon).

What would you say to such a man if came for your wife and told him that God had ordered it?

nrajeff

12-20-2008, 12:13 PM

What would you say to such a man if came for your wife and told him that God had ordered it?

---Russ, what would YOU say if Jesus came to you and ordered you to do something that you felt in your heart was wrong? What would you say to Jesus?

Russ

12-20-2008, 12:48 PM

---Russ, what would YOU say if Jesus came to you and ordered you to do something that you felt in your heart was wrong? What would you say to Jesus?

I'd know it wasn't Jesus who asked me to marry other men's wives.

I'd rebuke that evil spirit in the name of Jesus.

I'd pay attention to Jesus' example with, "It is written...." and "Get behind me, Satan."

nrajeff

12-20-2008, 02:14 PM

You didn't answer the question I asked you, Russ. Maybe you answered "the question I SHOULD have asked," but that's not the same thing. Would an honest person evade a question like that?

Libby

12-20-2008, 03:15 PM

nrajeff

12-20-2008, 05:29 PM

I think most of us would want to do whatever God asked....but, knowing whether or not it was from God is the tricky part...especially, when you have to make a judgment about someone else's experience (like Joseph Smith)...an experience we can only judge as outsiders, not knowing his true motivations or experiencing whatever he did (or did NOT) experience.

---But that's a different issue, Libby. Your issue is "If someone claiming to be Jesus appeared to me, how would I know if the claim is true?" so your issue is about verifying it's really Jesus. My question is not at all about that, it's about: How weird a commandment could Jesus give you before you'd say "No, I won't do it, it's too bizarre a thing to ask" ?

Russ

12-20-2008, 06:23 PM

Libby

12-20-2008, 10:20 PM

---But that's a different issue, Libby. Your issue is "If someone claiming to be Jesus appeared to me, how would I know if the claim is true?" so your issue is about verifying it's really Jesus. My question is not at all about that, it's about: How weird a commandment could Jesus give you before you'd say "No, I won't do it, it's too bizarre a thing to ask" ?

No, my issue is with whether or not to believe someone who tells me they are "talking to God" and that God told them to marry young girls and already married women. How do I know this person is telling me the truth?

If I have the experience "myself", in that God asks me, personally, to do something "weird", I have a little more insight into it, because it's MY personal experience. If it's someone else's experience, it's a matter of whether or not I can believe them.

Just where would you draw the line on what you believe God would ask someone to do? I was trying to think of something that God asked of someone, in the Bible (something really strange). The best I could come up with was telling Noah to build an ark. HAS God EVER asked someone to "raise up seed" to Him? (And as far as I can tell that wasn't even Joseph's purpose, although that was, supposedly, the main reason God asked him to do such a thing)..

It's all so......"weird" and seemingly perverted. I get a "feeling" about it that it was not from the Holy Spirit.

Russ

12-20-2008, 10:37 PM

It's all so......"weird" and seemingly perverted.Amen!
I get a "feeling" about it that it was not from the Holy Spirit. Amen and amen.

nrajeff

12-21-2008, 12:33 AM

No, my issue is with whether or not to believe someone who tells me they are "talking to God" and that God told them to marry young girls and already married women. How do I know this person is telling me the truth?

---Okay, so imagine you are in Old-Testament Israel and a man many believe to be a prophet tells you that God wants you to commit genocide on the Amalekites--slaughter their wives and children. How do you know this person is telling you the truth? What will happen to you if you object, make a fuss, and stand up and say "That's too brutal, too unfair to those women and children to be from God" ? Do you have the courage to stand up to him, knowing you will be put to death for "going against the prophet"? Or do you "drink the Kool-Aid" and actually believe, for some reason, that God really told this man this stuff? Why? What makes you "a believer"?

If I have the experience "myself", in that God asks me, personally, to do something "weird", I have a little more insight into it, because it's MY personal experience. If it's someone else's experience, it's a matter of whether or not I can believe them.

---So you don't blame Smith, since he had the experience himself, right? It's just anyone who believes his claims who is being a fool? What then of the Israelites in the story above--they weren't told, personally, to do something heinous, right?

Just where would you draw the line on what you believe God would ask someone to do? I was trying to think of something that God asked of someone, in the Bible (something really strange). The best I could come up with was telling Noah to build an ark.

----Did you forget about "Sacrifice your son, Isaac" ? How about "Wash in the pool 3 times and your leprosy will be gone" ? Or "I command you to eat my flesh and drink my blood"? That sounds pretty weird, you gotta admit.

HAS God EVER asked someone to "raise up seed" to Him?

---Aren't all Christians with children supposed to raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? (Eph. 6)

It's all so......"weird" and seemingly perverted. I get a "feeling" about it that it was not from the Holy Spirit.

---You could remember a favorite saying of many evangelicals: God's ways are not ours, His are higher than ours, and what we call good and evil might be called the opposite by God.

Libby

12-21-2008, 03:58 AM

---Okay, so imagine you are in Old-Testament Israel and a man many believe to be a prophet tells you that God wants you to commit genocide on the Amalekites--slaughter their wives and children. How do you know this person is telling you the truth? What will happen to you if you object, make a fuss, and stand up and say "That's too brutal, too unfair to those women and children to be from God" ? Do you have the courage to stand up to him, knowing you will be put to death for "going against the prophet"? Or do you "drink the Kool-Aid" and actually believe, for some reason, that God really told this man this stuff? Why? What makes you "a believer"?

Do you always answer questions with a dozen more questions? :)

In O.T. days, they still had scriptures and they had established prophets..and the Spirit of the Lord. They had their "standard of truth" just as we do today.

---So you don't blame Smith, since he had the experience himself, right? It's just anyone who believes his claims who is being a fool? What then of the Israelites in the story above--they weren't told, personally, to do something heinous, right?

Honestly? I don't think JS had an experience that told him to marry other men's wives. I think he made it up. I can't believe the true God would tell him to do something like that.

----Did you forget about "Sacrifice your son, Isaac" ? How about "Wash in the pool 3 times and your leprosy will be gone" ? Or "I command you to eat my flesh and drink my blood"? That sounds pretty weird, you gotta admit.

The Abraham and Isaac story was kind of strange...and it definitely took a lot of courage and faith for Abraham to obey God's will for him. But, he wasn't asking other people to sacrifice their sons...this was a private test and it was just between him and God.

The other...washing in a pool (also a private thing) but not really so weird.

---Aren't all Christians with children supposed to raise them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord? (Eph. 6)

That's not quite the same as God telling someone to take more wives (even other men's wives) to "raise up seed" to him. You gotta admit, there is a lot more "strange" to that, than simply having children with your one and only wife and raising them to believe and worship God.

---You could remember a favorite saying of many evangelicals: God's ways are not ours, His are higher than ours, and what we call good and evil might be called the opposite by God.

Yes, that's generally what Calvinists tell people who refuse to believe the clear scripture in the Bible that says God chooses for salvation. You don't usually "buy that" when it's said to you, about something you can't accept...right?

Russ

12-21-2008, 08:36 AM

[COLOR="Purple"]---So you don't blame Smith, since he had the experience himself, right? It's just anyone who believes his claims who is being a fool?

Jeff, something tells me that if President Monson came to you with a "revelation" that your wife would no longer be yours, but his, that you may have a weeeee bit of a problem with that.

Perhaps I'm being a weeee bit presumptuous. Would you say, "Yes, prophet, take the mother of my children?"

nrajeff

12-22-2008, 02:34 AM

Libby

12-22-2008, 03:22 AM

Russ

12-22-2008, 09:17 AM

Everyone who claims to believe that God exists, and that God has chosen prophets to relay His will to humanity, has already chosen to follow what those prophets have said, to a greater or lesser degree. If you believe that Moses and Joshua really got their marching orders from God, then you believe that you would have had faith in their orders to go and kill other people's wives and children. You would believe that you were doing God's will by killing when that prophet said to kill. If you personally have a problem with that, it shows that you have less-than-100% faith that the prophet was really getting those orders from God.

Exactly right on the money. If I was sure it was from God, I'd be a fool to sail away from Nineveh. I'd wind up in the belly of a big fish and be regurgitated on a beach somewhere.

Then I'd wind up on a hillside praying for a little shade and then my prayer would be answered with a plant to give me relief from the sun. And then when the plant withered and died overnight, I too might be found dangerously grumbling against God. (Jonah)

Sometimes I think that you think you're responding to atheists who have no faith to believe. Instead, you're responding to people who do indeed have faith in the God of the Holy Bible. It's just that we know about Joseph's bad fruit and we're certainly not going to follow his lust for other women.

If you're going to follow a prophet, it would behoove you to not follow one who might come to you and tell you that your wife is now his. Such a person is acting on his own. We know this because of the qualifications of a bishop. He should be a godly man with one wife, not 30! And certainly not the wives of other men.

Mormons like to remind us that "You shall know them by their fruit."

Joseph Smith had bad fruit. Rotten fruit. He had a burning in the britches.

nrajeff

12-22-2008, 11:47 AM

Exactly right on the money.

---As usual. :)

If I was sure it was from God, I'd be a fool to sail away from Nineveh. I'd wind up in the belly of a big fish and be regurgitated on a beach somewhere.

--Are you saying that Jonah wasn't sure it was God giving him those orders? Or are you saying that Jonah was sure, but he was a false prophet because he disobeyed God's orders? After all, true prophets don't disobey the God who orders them around, right?

Sometimes I think that you think you're responding to atheists who have no faith to believe
----Antis use logic similar to that of many atheists, so we can respond to both using similar logic.

Instead, you're responding to people who do indeed have faith in the God of the Holy Bible.

---So are you admitting that you'd have been one of those followers of Moses and Joshua who gladly chopped and speared those women and children to death, because you wouldn't have wondered whether your leader's orders really were coming from God or not? What would your 100% faith in that man be based on? A feeling?

Russ

12-22-2008, 01:12 PM

---As usual. :)

--Are you saying that Jonah wasn't sure it was God giving him those orders? Or are you saying that Jonah was sure, but he was a false prophet because he disobeyed God's orders? After all, true prophets don't disobey the God who orders them around, right?

----Antis use logic similar to that of many atheists, so we can respond to both using similar logic.

---So are you admitting that you'd have been one of those followers of Moses and Joshua who gladly chopped and speared those women and children to death, because you wouldn't have wondered whether your leader's orders really were coming from God or not? What would your 100% faith in that man be based on? A feeling?

I'm saying that we know Joseph wasn't a prophet based on the observance of his "fruit."

Was it Rodney Dangerfield who quipped, "Take my wife, please?"

Joseph Smith really took that to heart.

Bad fruit.

-Trying to stay with Joseph's polygamy and lust is hard to do when you introduce red herrings.

Russ

12-22-2008, 01:37 PM

---As usual. :)

--Are you saying that Jonah wasn't sure it was God giving him those orders? Or are you saying that Jonah was sure, but he was a false prophet because he disobeyed God's orders? After all, true prophets don't disobey the God who orders them around, right?

----Antis use logic similar to that of many atheists, so we can respond to both using similar logic.

---So are you admitting that you'd have been one of those followers of Moses and Joshua who gladly chopped and speared those women and children to death, because you wouldn't have wondered whether your leader's orders really were coming from God or not? What would your 100% faith in that man be based on? A feeling?

Jeff, may I please have an answer to the following question asked earlier?

What would you say to such a man if he came for your wife and told him that God had ordered it?

I'd tell him to get off my porch because God said that a bishop should be honorable.

Russ

12-22-2008, 02:37 PM

Exactly...which is the whole point. If we're going to follow some, supposed, prophet, don't you think it's a good idea to know for sure that he is a prophet of God?

In Joseph? Nearly zero. What is your percentage of faith that he is a prophet?

Libby, have you yet received an answer to your questions?

Why did Joseph have himself sealed to girls as young as 14?

Why did he marry women that were already married?

Why were these girls/women coerced by telling them that their families' spiritual lives depended on whether or not they married Joseph?

Do you believe there really was a "destroying angel" that would have taken Joseph's life, if certain of these women had not married him?

Stems answer is best summed up as "I don't know." That's honest, I suppose, even though stem knows much more about LDS theology, history and practice than he's letting on.

Jeff's answer appears to be "Because God said."

Other than that, we don't have much to go on.

I'm wondering if LDS are just playing hide the answer.

nrajeff

12-23-2008, 11:36 PM

Jeff, may I please have an answer to the following question asked earlier?What would you say to such a man if he came for your wife and told him that God had ordered it?

--What if you'd been an OT-era Jew, and a man had shown up at your tent and told you that God had ordered him to tell you to help slaughter Amalekite babies? "I'd tell him to get off my porch"? Or "What's my quota of babies to slaughter, and when do we start?"

Libby

12-24-2008, 02:01 AM

It all comes down to whether or not Joseph was a true prophet, yes?

Father_JD

01-14-2009, 10:51 AM

God sanctioned polygamy

At one point, yes. Was that God's original intention, messy?

NO. He created Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Eve, and Maria, and Susan, and Nancy.

And although God permitted polygamy in the OT, it is clear that had changed by NT times.

Bottom line? That was THEN. This is NOW.

Libby

01-14-2009, 04:38 PM

We don't follow Joseph Smith. From reading your posts this far on the thread I believe that you have a problem with polygamy itself. Why are you so convinced that Joseph Smith married a 14 year old girl? I have discussed this with you previously but you seem to take this view despite not taking into consideration any view to the contrary. I have not done an extensive study of the life of Joseph Smith and therefore consider myself not to be an authority on the subject. However from what I have read on his life and from he said I have come away with a very different conclusion then the one you hold of him.

Hi Mesenja..

If you notice, I did tell Seebok that I didn't have a problem with polygamy, per se (at least, not when I first converted)...but I didn't have a very clear picture of what it was really all about. After reading about Joseph's polygamous sealings to already married women and a few young girls, I started having a problem with it. I still do. How do I know he was married to a 14 year old girl? Two 14 year olds, actually. I believe it's a matter of record.

Libby

01-14-2009, 04:40 PM

Russ

01-14-2009, 06:52 PM

"And Nathan said to David,Thou art the man. Thus saith the LORD God of Israel,I anointed thee king over Israel,and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;And I gave thee thy master's house,and thy master's wives into thy bosom,and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah;and if that had been too little,I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things." 2 Samuel 12:7-8

Mesenja, polygamy is a horrible, cruel, sinful, disgusting practice.

It was neither commanded nor condoned of God. That's why bishops must be one-woman, blameworthy men who love God and forsake such nonsense.

Nothing good ever comes from polygamy.

Women are built by God with a godly jealousy for their husband.

***uming you're male and married (I don't know), go tell your wife that you just got a "revelation from God" that she is to accept your "revelation" that you're going to marry another woman... or five.

Have fun sleeping by yourself on the couch for the rest of your life.

Just like adultery, divorce and other sins which men commit, God tolerates our injustices.

Polygamy is perversion.

And for the LDS church to have at one time stated that people would do it in "the name of God" is more evidence that your "church" is sick on the inside.

Russ

01-14-2009, 06:55 PM

I see your point, but this was a different time and culture and not really something God "commanded" (to raise up seed), as Joseph Smith claimed for himself. God allowing something and claiming He "commanded" it are two different things.

Zingo bingo.

nrajeff

01-15-2009, 07:33 AM

God allowing something and claiming He "commanded" it are two different things.

--Good point. Russ believes that God commanded Israel to commit genocide against the Amalekites, where kids and women were slaughtered mercilessly. Russ can accept that and still sleep at night, but for some reason if that same God commanded plural marriage, all of sudden it's time to be shocked and disgusted. Hmmmm. "Murder okay, but marriage an atrocity: Next week's sermon by Russ. Refreshments will be served." Me likee! :)

Russ

01-15-2009, 11:26 AM

nrajeff

01-15-2009, 04:53 PM

You may be right, Russ--you and I may indeed believe in the same God, but if you are right about that, then you have been wrong to be accusing the LDS of believing in a different God. Right? So which is it?

And you are also right when you say that I believe in a God who, if He thinks it okay to occasionally command something as horrific as genocidal slaughter, should think it LESS of an atrocity--not more of one--to occasionally command plural marriage. You, on the other hand, seem to have your "atrocity meter" backwards, where God commanding genocidal slaughter isn't an atrocity at all, but if He were to command plural marriage, why, that is just a heinous, sinful, evil, satanic...atrocity and a sign of the occult. I think the average reasonable person would say your values are salmon-ackwards, since the average person would consider slaughter the more atrocious of the two commandments.

Russ

01-15-2009, 05:22 PM

Libby

01-15-2009, 06:17 PM

--Good point. Russ believes that God commanded Israel to commit genocide against the Amalekites, where kids and women were slaughtered mercilessly. Russ can accept that and still sleep at night, but for some reason if that same God commanded plural marriage, all of sudden it's time to be shocked and disgusted. Hmmmm. "Murder okay, but marriage an atrocity: Next week's sermon by Russ. Refreshments will be served." Me likee! :)

I hate getting bogged down in all of these side issues. For what it's worth, I do have a difficult time believing that God would order any kind of genocide.

My issue with polygamy is not really even the polygamy, itself, but the ages of some of the "girls" and the fact that some of the women were married.

I have actually been discussing this at length with a good LDS friend and he has given me many potential reasons, some of which are not likely, in my opinion...others, I give a "perhaps".

In regards to Joseph's marriages to younger women, he brought up the typical LDS response to this, which was the idea that people married younger in the 1800's. That's actually not true (so LDS need to stop using that one). The average age for marriage in the 1800's was between 20-21. Today it is between 26-27.

As for already married women, he said that Joseph knew that some of their husbands would not make it to the CK, so he was more or less making their calling and election sure by sealing them to himself. He said the marriages were for eternity, but not for "time" and that they were not consummated. I'm not sure how he knows that or if he is just guessing. I am going to ask him about it in my next email.

So, anyway, as I said (for me) it's not so much the polygamy as the circumstances (ages/married women) that is difficult to understand/accept.

Fig-bearing Thistle

01-15-2009, 06:22 PM

I will ask you, as a self-professing Christian, to explain "genocidal slaughter."

It's your topic, so you should defend it and support it.

By continuing to ***ert that God commanded polygamy you only reveal your Biblical ignorance. By ignorance I don't mean stupid. Rather, I point to your lack of Biblical study.

P.S. "salmon-ackwards" is a minced oath.

Are you asking 'as' a self-professing Christian, or are you asking 'a' self-professing Christian? I didn't quite get that part.

Maybe I can help:

Genocide: is the organized attempt to deliberately and systematically destroy, in whole or in part, an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.

(www.wikipedia.org)

Slaughter: the killing of great numbers of people or animals indiscriminately; carnage: the slaughter of war.

(Dictionary.com)

Do you accept the historical narrative of the Old Testament?

Russ

01-15-2009, 06:25 PM

Do you accept the historical narrative of the Old Testament?

God will always do what is right.

Russ

01-15-2009, 06:28 PM

So, anyway, as I said (for me) it's not so much the polygamy as the circumstances (ages/married women) that is difficult to understand/accept.

For me, it's the polygamy period.

A sick and twisted affair which causes heartache, confusion and jealousy.

Smith's ideas were perversion.

P.S. If "prophet Russ" came-a-calling on Libby, then Libby, Libby's husband and my own wife would call me "Warren Jeffs."

nrajeff

01-15-2009, 07:54 PM

For Russ: Fig gave you the definitions you needed. Now, which is the more atrocious atrocity in your opinion?

a) If God were to command the genocidal slaughter of tens of thousands.

b) If God were to command the plural marriage of hundreds.

For Libs: I'd like to see evidence that the average age at which American girls married in the 1830s-1840s was 20-21 years of age. Because I am skeptical of that.

Russ

01-15-2009, 08:01 PM

If God were to command the plural marriage of hundreds.

The large word "if" is the operative in this situation.

God never did ordain polygamy nor did God command it.

It remains a most problematic ins***ution proclaimed by Joseph Smith as ordained of God.

Libby

01-15-2009, 11:17 PM

For Libs: I'd like to see evidence that the average age at which American girls married in the 1830s-1840s was 20-21 years of age. Because I am skeptical of that.

Jeff, here are a couple of sources for the marriage information.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761574825_3/marriage.html

The timing of marriage has fluctuated over the past century. In 1995 the median age of women in the United States at the time of their first marriage was 25. The median age of men was about 27. Men and women in the United States marry for the first time an average of five years later than people did in the 1950s. However, young adults of the 1950s married younger than did any previous generation in U.S. history. Today’s later age of marriage is in line with the age of marriage between 1890 and 1940. Moreover, a greater proportion of the population was married (95 percent) during the 1950s than at any time before or since. Experts do not agree on why the “marriage rush” of the late 1940s and 1950s occurred, but most social scientists believe it represented a response to the return of normalcy and prosperity after 15 years of severe economic depression and war.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/Age.htm

Trinity

01-16-2009, 12:29 PM

I never understood how Solomon was able to please 700 wives and 300 concubines. We barely succeed to live and please one wife in our modern time. :)

One thousand woman for one man. Three women per night. I would bet he has a very good prostate.

Trinity

Father_JD

01-16-2009, 12:59 PM

The author of Genesis was Moses who was a polygamist. Also God's original plan was for Adam and Eve to walk around and never die.

I'm not certain that Moses was still married to Zipporah when he married the "Cu****e" woman. An interesting question but IRRELEVANT regardless as well as your equivocation argument of God's plan for Adam and Eve to "walk around and never die", messdude.

It's apparent from Genesis when God created Adam and Eve, that one man, one woman WAS THE NORM.

Get it? :rolleyes:

Libby

01-16-2009, 02:30 PM

Which author and book do you rely on for this undisputed matter of record of fact?

I am relying on the findings of the 1890 U.S. Census.

On what, do you and Jeff base your opinion that people married much younger?

Libby

01-16-2009, 02:34 PM

Even if true if this practice was morally objectionable then God would have not only condemned but forbidden the practice of polygamy in all times and under any circumstance.

However this was not the case as I have previously shown you. In fact yibbum or levirate marriage was mandated by the Law of Moses. This was where the brother of a man who died without children has an obligation to marry the widow.

Deuteronomy 25:5-6 (http://scriptures.lds.org/en/deut/25/5-6#5) ¶ If brethren dwell together,and one of them die,and have no child,the wife of the dead shall not marry without unto a stranger:her husband’s brother shall go in unto her,and take her to him to wife,and perform the duty of an husband’s brother unto her. 6 And it shall be,that the firstborn which she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother which is dead,that his name be not put out of Israel.

Although, I am not personally fond of the idea of polygamy, I haven't really claimed that God found it completely "morally objectionable". I question that God "commanded it" and I question Smith's marriages to young girls and already married women.

Russ

01-16-2009, 02:41 PM

Why did God ask David through the prophet Nathan to enter into the horrible,cruel,sinful,perverted,unjust,disgusting and sinful practice of polygamy? [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR]

God didn't ask any such thing.

Please read a commentary for further insights. (Please choose one outside Mormondom.)

nrajeff

01-16-2009, 04:01 PM

I am relying on the findings of the 1890 U.S. Census.

--Why 1890? Last time I checked, Smith married 0 people in 1890. How about, say, the 1840 census? And for Illinois? Wouldn't that be fairer?

I did notice that in the 1850 Census, 41.7% of women married as teenagers---compared to only 4.1% of men.

Trinity

01-16-2009, 04:22 PM

In a patriarchal society, the polygamy is something perfectly natural. There were a time where women had no value, and not even a soul. Not so long ago, women were not even bright enough to vote.

Leviticus 27:6
A boy between the ages of one month and five years is valued at five pieces of silver; a girl of that age is valued at three pieces of silver.

I know no woman who wants to return to the moses law. Even the most conservative women living in the United States. If we compare the women in the time of moses with today evangelical women, well, all the born-again women are extremely liberal. :eek:

Trinity

Libby

01-16-2009, 05:37 PM

--Why 1890? Last time I checked, Smith married 0 people in 1890. How about, say, the 1840 census? And for Illinois? Wouldn't that be fairer?

I did notice that in the 1850 Census, 41.7% of women married as teenagers---compared to only 4.1% of men.

I tried to find earlier information on marriage ages, but it didn't seem to be available (or is rather sketchy) other than what I linked. Can you link me to the information you found? I am fairly sure 14 has never been an "average age" for marriage in this country.

Libby

01-16-2009, 05:51 PM

I am asking you on what basis do you make your claim that Joseph Smith married a 14 yeaar old girl?

Marriage to Fanny Alger wasn't a matter of public record, if that's what you mean. Journal writings, mostly hearsay, as far as I know. But, his marriage to Helen Mar Kimball is well documented in her journal writings and she was only 14 at the time.

http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/26-HelenMarKimball.htm

nrajeff

01-16-2009, 10:06 PM

I tried to find earlier information on marriage ages, but it didn't seem to be available (or is rather sketchy) other than what I linked. Can you link me to the information you found?

---I think that census data came from fairwiki. After I quoted it, I closed the window. I can find it again if you really want to see it.

I am fairly sure 14 has never been an "average age" for marriage in this country.

---It wasn't an average age for Smith's wives, either.

Libby

01-17-2009, 12:07 AM

---It wasn't an average age for Smith's wives, either.

I never said it was. I just took exception to the justification that 14 (or there abouts) was an "average age" for women to marry in the 1800's. That there was some kind of cultural gap, in this area, which doesn't actually exist.

Libby

01-17-2009, 12:12 AM

What does it matter Libby if there was no biblical mandate or command to practice plural marriage as God did not condemn the practice of plural marriage in the Bible?

Like I've said (a couple of times, already), I'm not really questioning polygamy, in and of itself (too much). My questions have always been around the why of Joseph Smith's marriages to the younger girls and to already married women. That's what bothers me the most (personally).

Libby

01-17-2009, 12:42 AM

Actually, I am almost beyond being "bothered" by it. I am tired of thinking about and talking about it. I accept that it's a matter of faith.

I told Fig a few months ago that I could see both sides of this question of whether or not the church is true...and I truly can, for the most part. I have been on the extremes of both sides of that question and I think I am now moving more to the middle. I acknowledge that there are a lot of things about church history that I can't know...things that have to be taken on faith, if one is inclined to believe. I wasn't able to do that, completely, but I have come to a place where I think I have, at least, not thrown out the baby with the bath water.

nrajeff

01-17-2009, 12:44 PM

I never said it was. I just took exception to the justification that 14 (or there abouts) was an "average age" for women to marry in the 1800's. That there was some kind of cultural gap, in this area, which doesn't actually exist.

---Sorry if anyone claimed that 14 was the average age for women to marry in the 1800s. I agree that the average was probably higher. I was skeptical of the claim that the average was between 20-21 for women in 1840s Illinois. But suppose you are right, and 21 WAS the average marrying age. And suppose Smith married 5 women whose ages were 14, 16, 21, 33, and 55. What would the average age of the women he married be? About 28 years old, which is HIGHER than the national average was, right? So what's the problem? :D

Father_JD

01-17-2009, 01:18 PM

What's the problem, jeff?

Uh...it's not a case of "averages" but that of his sleeping with UNDERAGE GIRLS, around 14 years of age.

Father_JD

01-17-2009, 01:23 PM

and eternal life were also the norm at the time. Get it?

Not relevant, messy. God condoned polygamy for a time but then put a STOP to it in the NT...a work you have little familiarity with.

Also it is not irrelevant to bring up the fact that the author of Genesis was a polygamist with two wives. Moses who was "was very meek,above all the men which were upon the face of the earth" and of who God said that the Spirit of God "is upon thee" (Numbers 12:3;Numbers 11:17) apparently according to your argument either is not informed of God's original plan for marriage or deliberately chooses to ignore it.

Hey, I'm merely showing you the NORM, which was MONOGAMY which is evident EVEN in Genesis. I've already conceded that God ALLOWED polygamy in OT times, but it's CLEAR that was NOT His intention NOR the NORM.

You're forced to take your Mormonesque cues from the OT, and blithely IGNORE THE NT WHICH DENOUNCES POLYGAMY. :rolleyes:

nrajeff

01-17-2009, 01:49 PM

What's the problem, jeff?
Uh...it's not a case of "averages" but that of his sleeping with UNDERAGE GIRLS, around 14 years of age.

--Okay, so the problem is not polygamy--the problem is the ages of the wives, a few of which were under the average for the time, while more of them were OVER the average. All right, then.

"It's the age 14 marriage to Helen Mar Kimball that is especially troubling, but as Todd Compton points out, "there is absolutely no evidence that there was any sexuality in the marriage, and I suggest that, following later practice in Utah, there may have been no sexuality. All the evidence points to this marriage as a primarily dynastic marriage."

In Joseph Smith's day, most states still had declared age of consent to be ten. Some raised it to twelve, and Delaware lowered it to seven![13]

It is significant that none of Joseph's contemporaries complained about the age differences between polygamous or monogamous marriage partners. This was simply part of their environment and culture; it is unfair to judge nineteenth century members by twenty-first century social standards.

In past centuries, women would often die in childbirth, and men often remarried younger women afterwards. Women often married older men, because these were more financially established and able to support them than men their own age.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Joseph_Smith%27s_marriages_to_young_women

Father_JD

01-18-2009, 03:55 PM

Anything to vindicate/justify JS' PEDOPHILIA, jeff?

Sure you're gonna go with that?

Fig-bearing Thistle

01-18-2009, 06:14 PM

Anything to vindicate/justify JS' PEDOPHILIA, jeff?

Sure you're gonna go with that?

Anything to sucker punch at Joseph Smith, JD?

"Win at all costs" is not going to lead you to the truth, JD. God giveth grace to the humble. Just a thought.

Father_JD

01-19-2009, 08:49 AM

Anything to sucker punch at Joseph Smith, JD?

"Win at all costs" is not going to lead you to the truth, JD. God giveth grace to the humble. Just a thought.

And God giveth not feelings that are contrary to His written Word, the Bible! Just a thought. :eek:

Fig-bearing Thistle

01-19-2009, 10:39 AM

And God giveth not feelings that are contrary to His written Word, the Bible! Just a thought. :eek:

Then check your own feelings, JD. And quit presuming to judge those of another. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.

Father_JD

01-19-2009, 01:48 PM

Then check your own feelings, JD. And quit presuming to judge those of another. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.

My "feelings" are irrelevent, figgie. This is something you just don't get being Mormon and your whole belief system is predicated on a "burning in the bosom" or as I like to characterize it, the WARM-FUZZY. :D

And WHY do you hypocritically cite Biblical verses to ME, since you do NOT believe in the inerrancy or infallibility of scripture? You're very invocation of this verse IS to tacitly attribute, convey BOTH inerrancy and infallibility to that very verse.

So, to be HONEST, you've gotta do one of two things, figster:

Cease and desist on EVER citing the Bible...OR
Admit that you're conveying inerrancy and infallibility to THOSE CITED VERSES.

To do anything less is to play the hypocrite. :eek:

Fig-bearing Thistle

01-19-2009, 06:00 PM

My "feelings" are irrelevent, figgie. This is something you just don't get being Mormon and your whole belief system is predicated on a "burning in the bosom" or as I like to characterize it, the WARM-FUZZY. :D

Your "eelings" would explain your hostility toward Joseph Smith. How is your hostility irrelevant to your accusations?

And WHY do you hypocritically cite Biblical verses to ME, since you do NOT believe in the inerrancy or infallibility of scripture? You're very invocation of this verse IS to tacitly attribute, convey BOTH inerrancy and infallibility to that very verse.

The Bible is infallible enough to condemn the hypocrisy of someone presuming to judge another person. So, I will continue to use Bible verses to point out such hypocrisy in the future. You shouldn't mind, unless you think you have no sin.

So, to be HONEST, you've gotta do one of two things, figster:

Cease and desist on EVER citing the Bible...OR
Admit that you're conveying inerrancy and infallibility to THOSE CITED VERSES.

To do anything less is to play the hypocrite. :eek:

It hurts to see your own book condemn you, doesn't it. I do feel sorry for you, if that helps.

Humble yourself, JD. God gives grace to the humble.

Father_JD

01-20-2009, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Father_JD
My "feelings" are irrelevent, figgie. This is something you just don't get being Mormon and your whole belief system is predicated on a "burning in the bosom" or as I like to characterize it, the WARM-FUZZY.

Your "feelings" would explain your hostility toward Joseph Smith. How is your hostility irrelevant to your accusations?

LOL. Now we're dealing with YOUR "feelings" that I'm being "hostile" to your phony prophet. What IS relevant are his FALSE PROPHECIES, dude. Get a clue.

Originally Posted by Father_JD
And WHY do you hypocritically cite Biblical verses to ME, since you do NOT believe in the inerrancy or infallibility of scripture? You're very invocation of this verse IS to tacitly attribute, convey BOTH inerrancy and infallibility to that very verse.

The Bible is infallible enough to condemn the hypocrisy of someone presuming to judge another person. So, I will continue to use Bible verses to point out such hypocrisy in the future. You shouldn't mind, unless you think you have no sin.

So then, your answer is just another tacit admittance that THAT particular verse MUST be INERRANT AND INFALLIBLE as to why you're quoting it.

How about a straight answer instead of playing your little Mormon reindeer games of evasion and deflection??

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD

So, to be HONEST, you've gotta do one of two things, figster:

Cease and desist on EVER citing the Bible...OR
Admit that you're conveying inerrancy and infallibility to THOSE CITED VERSES.

To do anything less is to play the hypocrite.

It hurts to see your own book condemn you, doesn't it. I do feel sorry for you, if that helps.

Humble yourself, JD. God gives grace to the humble.

IF "my" book is CONDEMNING me, then that MUST mean you hold those verses to BE INERRANT AND INFALLIBLE.

Why do Mos play such dishonest GAMES, figgie?

Your reply is nothing short of being hypocritical AND dishonest. It seems you're the one who needs to humble himself, dude!!

Mesenja

01-21-2009, 03:51 PM

Show me where monogamy was always the norm.

Father_JD

01-22-2009, 03:32 PM

Are you that obtuse that you can't see it...even beginning in the Garden of Eden with the creation of Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Eve, and Susie, and Wendy, and Elizabeth, and Nancy, and Jennifer, et al.????

Or from such verses is that "a man shall leave his family and cleave to his WIFE (notice, SINGULAR) and the two become one flesh"????

nrajeff

01-22-2009, 07:44 PM

Are you that obtuse, messy, that you can't see it...even beginning in the Garden of Eden with the creation of Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Eve, and Susie, and Wendy, and Elizabeth, and Nancy, and Jennifer, et al.????Or from such verses is that "a man shall leave his family and cleave to his WIFE (notice, SINGULAR) and the two become one flesh"????

----But if those early days are the pattern that must be followed for all time without any deviation, then people should be marrying their siblings, right? Like in the beginning...

Father_JD

01-23-2009, 01:28 PM

----But if those early days are the pattern that must be followed for all time without any deviation, then people should be marrying their siblings, right? Like in the beginning...

Ah, but you're forgetting two things, jeff:

God explicitly FORBADE the marrying of siblings at one point in the OT just like He explicitly FORBADE polygamy in the NT. ;)

nrajeff

01-24-2009, 09:19 AM

Ah, but you're forgetting two things, jeff:
God explicitly FORBADE the marrying of siblings at one point in the OT just like He explicitly FORBADE polygamy in the NT. ;)

--So wait-- you believe that God sometimes commands things that, at a later date, He forbids? Does that work the other way as well, where He might forbid something that He later commands? This is fascinating.

Father_JD

01-24-2009, 12:11 PM

--So wait-- you believe that God sometimes commands things that, at a later date, He forbids? Does that work the other way as well, where He might forbid something that He later commands? This is fascinating.

Jeff, I believe you don't intend to equivocate the arguments, but you did it again.

God did NOT command polygamy.

nrajeff

01-24-2009, 04:50 PM

I am not trying to equivocate, I am trying to nail you down to a consistent statement about whether God ever commands and later forbids a practice, and vice versa.

Father_JD

01-28-2009, 01:55 PM

I don't think you'll find even one case of God "commands and later forbids a practice", etc. from the Bible, jeff.

I'm all ears.

Fig-bearing Thistle

01-28-2009, 02:38 PM

I don't think you'll find even one case of God "commands and later forbids a practice", etc. from the Bible, jeff.

I'm all ears.

Hmmm.

Has God ever forbid animal sacrifice?

Does God forbid his disciples to practice the Law of Moses today?

Has God ever commanded to take another's life?

Does God forbid the practice of picking up large rocks and throwing them at a person for certain sins? Or is that practice now forbidden? Or is it merely optional now?

nrajeff

01-28-2009, 05:13 PM

Hmmm.
Has God ever forbid animal sacrifice?
Does God forbid his disciples to practice the Law of Moses today?
Has God ever commanded to take another's life?
Does God forbid the practice of picking up large rocks and throwing them at a person for certain sins? Or is that practice now forbidden? Or is it merely optional now?

---FrJD says "I don't think you'll find even one case of God "commands and later forbids a practice", etc. from the Bible, jeff. I'm all ears."

Maybe FrJD has "another Bible" where the stuff you mentioned got deleted. :D

Trinity

01-28-2009, 05:31 PM

I don't think you'll find even one case of God "commands and later forbids a practice", etc. from the Bible, jeff.

I'm all ears.

I have great respect for Father_JD but I have to be fair and truthful.

"Circumcision."

Trinity

Fig-bearing Thistle

01-28-2009, 05:46 PM

I have great respect for Father_JD but I have to be fair and truthful.

"Circumcision."

Trinity

I thought of that too. But it didn't quite fit the exact requirements that JD laid out--because God doesn't exactly "forbid it" right now.

Trinity

01-28-2009, 06:00 PM

I thought of that too. But it didn't quite fit the exact requirements that JD laid out--because God doesn't exactly "forbid it" right now.

In the book of Acts, it was the main concern of the Jerusalem council, and the practice became forbidden for the gentile converts.

Trinity

Fig-bearing Thistle

01-28-2009, 06:43 PM

In the book of Acts, it was the main concern of the Jerusalem council, and the practice became forbidden for the gentile converts.

Trinity

Then, add one more to my growing list of sins.:D

Father_JD

01-29-2009, 05:50 AM

I have great respect for Father_JD but I have to be fair and truthful.

"Circumcision."

Trinity

Uh, sorry...but you're in ERROR. NO WHERE is it stated that circumcision was banished. I suggest you READ your Bible more closely! :)

Father_JD

01-29-2009, 05:54 AM

Hmmm.

Has God ever forbid animal sacrifice?

No. Show me were He forbade animal sacrifice, ok?

Does God forbid his disciples to practice the Law of Moses today?

No. The Ten Commandments are still in force last time I heard. And anything of ceremonial law was not FORBIDDEN. Please show otherwise from the Bible.

Has God ever commanded to take another's life?

You'll have to clarify what you mean here.

Does God forbid the practice of picking up large rocks and throwing them at a person for certain sins? Or is that practice now forbidden? Or is it merely optional now?

No. God didn't forbid the practice. Please show from scripture that it is NOW FORBIDDEN.

Father_JD

01-29-2009, 05:55 AM

---FrJD says "I don't think you'll find even one case of God "commands and later forbids a practice", etc. from the Bible, jeff. I'm all ears."

Maybe FrJD has "another Bible" where the stuff you mentioned got deleted. :D

Maybe FrJD knows his Bible better than Mos, jeff! :D

Father_JD

01-29-2009, 05:56 AM

Vewy good, gw***hoppuh. So now you know God NEVER forbade circumcision.

Father_JD

01-29-2009, 05:57 AM

In the book of Acts, it was the main concern of the Jerusalem council, and the practice became forbidden for the gentile converts.

Trinity

Sorry, but you're misreading Acts. It was NEVER forbidden, just considered UNNECESSARY for Gentile conversion to the faith.

Trinity

01-29-2009, 10:27 AM

Sorry, but you're misreading Acts. It was NEVER forbidden, just considered UNNECESSARY for Gentile conversion to the faith.

You are right, "unnecessary" is a better word. However, this is an importance change of an ordinance of God. A complete divorce from the Judaism. In a time when the Gentiles will overflow the Jews in the Church. After the apostles the converted gentiles became the leaders into the Church. The gentiles will outnumber the Jews m***ively.

What was a perpetual sign (circumcision) had become obsolete and was replaced by the baptism.

Trinity

Fig-bearing Thistle

01-29-2009, 10:42 AM

No. Show me were He forbade animal sacrifice, ok?

Does God still accept animal sacrifice as a sacrifice for sin? Think carefully now.

No. The Ten Commandments are still in force last time I heard. And anything of ceremonial law was not FORBIDDEN. Please show otherwise from the Bible.

No wonder you don't have an account on Concerned Christians. Those folks vehemently deny that the 10 Commandments are still in force. They would say that they are fulfilled.

But, I specifically asked about the law of Moses. (Read Lev. 8: 1, 4-6, 9-10, 13, 15-17, 19-21, 23-24, 28-31, 36 for example)

Are you saying that God still accepts these observances? Could just anyone perform these rites and ordinances of the Law of Moses? Could just anyone do them today? Or were only certain Israelites (Sons of Aaron or of Levi for example) commanded, and the rest forbidden?

You'll have to clarify what you mean here.
...
No. God didn't forbid the practice. Please show from scripture that it is NOW FORBIDDEN.

John 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

Divorcement also appears to be one of those things once allowed, but not really sanctioned.

I shouldn't wonder that you metaphorically stone Joseph Smith today. And fully justify yourself in it.

Mark 10
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

It seems that old some things that were done in the past, WILL be done away with. Doesn't this count?

1 Cor 13:9-10
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.

Fig-bearing Thistle

01-29-2009, 10:45 AM

You are right, "unnecessary" is a better word. However, this is an importance change of an ordinance of God. A complete divorce from the Judaism. In a time when the Gentiles will overflow the Jews in the Church. After the apostles the converted gentiles became the leaders into the Church. The gentiles will outnumber the Jews m***ively.

What was a perpetual sign (circumcision) had become obsolete and was replaced by the baptism.

Trinity

Baptism. Great idea Trinity.

Baptism is another thing that was once commanded, but now, it seems to be largely dismissed as 'optional'. (Though Father JD hasn't exactly said it is forbidden...yet that is.:D)

Father_JD

01-29-2009, 11:59 AM

Baptism. Great idea Trinity.

Baptism is another thing that was once commanded, but now, it seems to be largely dismissed as 'optional'. (Though Father JD hasn't exactly said it is forbidden...yet that is.:D)

No one has said baptism is "optional", stemmy. Although baptism does NOT save one, it IS a proper and thankful response to God for what it represents:

New life in Christ.

Father_JD

01-29-2009, 12:02 PM

You are right, "unnecessary" is a better word. However, this is an importance change of an ordinance of God. A complete divorce from the Judaism. In a time when the Gentiles will overflow the Jews in the Church. After the apostles the converted gentiles became the leaders into the Church. The gentiles will outnumber the Jews m***ively.

What was a perpetual sign (circumcision) had become obsolete and was replaced by the baptism.

Trinity

Uh, you'd better go back and read your Bible. Circumcision was NOT replaced by baptism. And I challenge you to show from the Bible that that is so.

(Hint...you're not going to find support for your contention. Another hint: circumcision is STILL the perpetual covenantal sign between God and JEWS).

Fig-bearing Thistle

01-29-2009, 03:14 PM

No one has said baptism is "optional", stemmy. Although baptism does NOT save one, it IS a proper and thankful response to God for what it represents:

New life in Christ.

Well, I noticed that you ignored the other post. I guess you see the folly of the idea that God doesn't command for some, and forbid the same for others.

So is baptism required? Or was it given as an optional commandment?

Trinity

01-29-2009, 04:28 PM

Uh, you'd better go back and read your Bible. Circumcision was NOT replaced by baptism. And I challenge you to show from the Bible that that is so.

"Superposed" could have been a better term.

Colossians 2:11-12
When you came to Christ, you were "circumcised", but not by a physical procedure. It was a spiritual procedure – the cutting away of your sinful nature. For you were buried with Christ when you were baptized. And with him you were raised to a new life because you trusted the mighty power of God, who raised Christ from the dead.

Both signs are metaphorical. By the circumcision we are entering in the Judaism and by the baptism we are entering in the Christendom.

The circumcision of the heart and the baptism have some equivalence. Jews also see the circumcision as a sign of purity. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia a baptism of purification has often preceded the circumcision.

"This shows how deeply rooted in the minds of the ancient Hebrews was the idea that circumcision was an indispensable act of national consecration and purification... Loyalty to the Abrahamic covenant was shown by the Gentiles who voluntarily espoused the Jewish faith, but not by the slaves of Abraham upon whom circumcision was enforced, the patriarch having done so only because he wished to conform to the Levitical laws of purity."
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=514&letter=C&search=circumcision

"Deuteronomy 10:16 says: "Circumcise the foreskin of your heart," suggesting that ethical acts (among people) are as important as spiritual acts (between people and God). The prophetic tradition emphasizes that God expects people to be good as well as pious, and that non-Jews will be judged based on their ethical behavior. Thus, Jeremiah 9:25-26 says that circumcised and uncircumcised will be punished alike by the Lord; for "all the nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in heart."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_circumcision

"It signified purification of the heart, inward circumcision effected by the Spirit (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Ezek. 44:7; Acts 7:51; Rom. 2:28; Col. 2:11). Circumcision as a symbol shadowing forth sanctification by the Holy Spirit has now given way to the symbol of baptism.(q.v.). But the truth embodied in both ordinances is ever the same, the removal of sin, the sanctifying effects of grace in the heart. Under the Jewish dispensation, church and state were identical. No one could be a member of the one without also being a member of the other. Circumcision was a sign and seal of membership in both. Every circumcised person bore thereby evidence that he was one of the chosen people, a member of the church of God as it then existed, and consequently also a member of the Jewish commonwealth."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/circumcision

(Hint...you're not going to find support for your contention. Another hint: circumcision is STILL the perpetual covenantal sign between God and JEWS).

For the Judaism, yes. Not for the Christians. Did I say otherwise? No. Here is what I said.

Post # 154

"However, this is an importance change of an ordinance of God. A complete divorce from the Judaism. In a time when the Gentiles will overflow the Jews in the Church. After the apostles the converted gentiles became the leaders into the Church. The gentiles will outnumber the Jews m***ively.

What was a perpetual sign (circumcision) had become obsolete and was replaced by the baptism."

Indeed it was a MAJOR change.

Trinity

Father_JD

01-31-2009, 11:52 AM

Whether you recognize it or not, your argument is NOT FROM SCRIPTURE, but from commentary found in an encyclopdia.

I'm NOT arguing that baptism is for Christians. The argument was ostensibly that CIRCUMCISION WAS NOW FORBIDDEN...whether for Jew or Gentile.

That case has NOT been made.

Father_JD

01-31-2009, 11:54 AM

Circumcision IS commanded for Jews but NOT for Christians.
Baptism is NOT required for salvation.

Neither was circumcision required for salvation.

nrajeff

01-31-2009, 02:11 PM

Circumcision IS commanded for Jews but NOT for Christians.
Baptism is NOT required for salvation.
Neither was circumcision required for salvation.

---So you are saying that the One True God continues to enforce The Law (Torah) where today's Jews are concerned? And that same God enforces DIFFERENT commandments upon Christians? For example, you believe that God wants all Jews to keep following the eye-4-an-eye law?

Trinity

01-31-2009, 08:53 PM

... but from commentary found in an encyclopdia.

Alright, it is not the proper time. :)

Trinity

Fig-bearing Thistle

01-31-2009, 10:18 PM

Baptism is NOT required for salvation.

So then baptism is optional, in your opinion, right?

Father_JD

02-02-2009, 05:32 AM

So then baptism is optional, in your opinion, right?

Nope. Please stop putting words into my mouth, figgie. :rolleyes:

Father_JD

02-02-2009, 05:34 AM

---So you are saying that the One True God continues to enforce The Law (Torah) where today's Jews are concerned? And that same God enforces DIFFERENT commandments upon Christians? For example, you believe that God wants all Jews to keep following the eye-4-an-eye law?

Remember, jeff, the question was about God once "commanding" something and then later FORBIDDING it. Moral Law is and has ALWAYS been in force...ya ever hear of the "Ten Commandments"?

And YES!! Eye-for-an-eye is Biblical, but do you KNOW what that law even MEANS?? :eek:

Father_JD

02-02-2009, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by Father_JD
No. Show me were He forbade animal sacrifice, ok?

Does God still accept animal sacrifice as a sacrifice for sin? Think carefully now.

Animal sacrifices were rendered OBSOLETE with Jesus' once-for-all atoning sacrifice on the Cross, figgie. Something you Mos still don't understand about the function of the Levitical Priesthood which was DONE AWAY WITH IN CHRIST and could NOT be "restored" by Joseph Smith. Remember, now, just how you've equivocated the argument from God once COMMANDING something and NOW FORBIDDING IT. Think carefully now...:rolleyes:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
No. The Ten Commandments are still in force last time I heard. And anything of ceremonial law was not FORBIDDEN. Please show otherwise from the Bible.

No wonder you don't have an account on Concerned Christians. Those folks vehemently deny that the 10 Commandments are still in force. They would say that they are fulfilled.

All commandments are "fulfilled" in Christ, in that Christians are NOT JUDGED BY THE LAW SALVIVICALLY. I think you're probably misunderstanding "Concerned Christians".

But, I specifically asked about the law of Moses. (Read Lev. 8: 1, 4-6, 9-10, 13, 15-17, 19-21, 23-24, 28-31, 36 for example)

Are you saying that God still accepts these observances?

No, I didn't say that. The sacrificial system was done away with in Christ...which is WHY THE LEVITICAL PRIESTHOOD COULD NOT BE RESTORED BY JOSEPH SMITH. We don't see Mormon "High priests" offering sacrifices do we?? Of course not. It's NOT a question of whether God "still accepts" these practices but did He ostensibly FORBID them later? That was the argument which you keep equivocating.

Could just anyone perform these rites and ordinances of the Law of Moses? Could just anyone do them today? Or were only certain Israelites (Sons of Aaron or of Levi for example) commanded, and the rest forbidden?

Right on, figgie!! And that's WHY the supposed Mormon "restoration" of the Levitical Priesthood is patently ABSURD. Thanks for demonstrating the ridiculousness of JS supposedly "restoring" the OT Priesthood!! :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
You'll have to clarify what you mean here.
...
No. God didn't forbid the practice. Please show from scripture that it is NOW FORBIDDEN.

John 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

Incredible...i.e. the lack of Mormon understanding of scripture. The temple still stood...the sacrifices were still in operation...and YES, the woman should have been stoned, figgie...but the Pharisees weren't forthright in their observance of the law which would necessarily involve the guilty MAN AS WELL.

Divorcement also appears to be one of those things once allowed, but not really sanctioned.

More equivocation, dude. When are you Mos gonna stop doing this? God permitted divorce. Yes. Did He ever say there were NO GROUNDS EVER for divorce? No. Does God forbid divorce? No. Do you see how you've equivocated the argument???

I shouldn't wonder that you metaphorically stone Joseph Smith today. And fully justify yourself in it.

Under the Law, Joseph Smith SHOULD HAVE AND WOULD HAVE BEEN STONED for the FALSE prophet that he was. Are American laws founded on a theocracy with God literally running the country? I don't think so. I haven't seen either the Father or the Son in Washington lately. What I'm getting at that most are CIVIL laws that could exist ONLY within the context of Israel's THEOCRACY. But it's NOT about God NOW FORBIDDING stoning. Get it? :rolleyes:

Mark 10
3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

It seems that old some things that were done in the past, WILL be done away with. Doesn't this count?

No problem, figgie. Your argument was that there were things COMMANDED in the past which are NOW FORBIDDEN. You insist on equivocating your own argument or don't you see that? :eek:

nrajeff

02-02-2009, 08:59 AM

Remember, jeff, the question was about God once "commanding" something and then later FORBIDDING it.

---So tell us: God (known as Yahweh) once commanded that people believed to be witches, gays, or disrespectful of their parents be executed by religious leaders. Did God (known as Jesus) forbid such executions? Or did He reiterate that the commandment is still in force and is expected to be carried out forever? Or: How about "Love thy friends, but hate thine enemies" ? Was that part of The Law ever rescinded, and hating enemies changed to a FORBIDDEN thing?

Father_JD

02-02-2009, 12:25 PM

---So tell us: God (known as Yahweh) once commanded that people believed to be witches, gays, or disrespectful of their parents be executed by religious leaders. Did God (known as Jesus) forbid such executions? Or did He reiterate that the commandment is still in force and is expected to be carried out forever? Or: How about "Love thy friends, but hate thine enemies" ? Was that part of The Law ever rescinded, and hating enemies changed to a FORBIDDEN thing?

Good questions, jeff. Now let's unravel your argument:

Under OT law which was enforceable in a THEOCRACY in the land of Israel, YES, all of the above were subject to capital punishment. Did Jesus "forbid" such executions. NO, HE DID NOT. I'm ***uming you're using John 8 as some kind of anti-capital punishment sentiment from Jesus, no?

FYI, for the law to be fully executable, the GUILTY MAN would have necessarily been brought to judgment as well. Note as well, Jesus did NOT FORBID the woman's stoning...or forbid capital punishment...EVER.

I suggest you read Romans 13 as well...;)

You have made NO case for "God formerly commanding something and then later FORBIDDING it".

nrajeff

02-02-2009, 01:31 PM

Good questions, jeff.

--Thanks. I try to keep them good.

Under OT law

---which you believe to be GOD'S law, right?

which was enforceable in a THEOCRACY in the land of Israel, YES, all of the above were subject to capital punishment. Did Jesus "forbid" such executions. NO, HE DID NOT. I'm ***uming you're using John 8 as some kind of anti-capital punishment sentiment from Jesus, no?

---No, I am not using John 8, I am using Matthew 5 and Luke 6, where Jesus gives new commandments that revoke or supersede the old ones that He gave the Israelites about 1000 years earlier: The old commandment was love your friends but hate your enemies, but the new one commands people to love and do good for their enemies. Sounds like a case of forbidding something that was previously a commandment.

FYI, for the law to be fully executable, the GUILTY MAN would have necessarily been brought to judgment as well. Note as well, Jesus did NOT FORBID the woman's stoning...or forbid capital punishment...EVER.

--Is this more arguments from silence? After all, Jesus did not forbid executing gay people, or witches, or disrespectful children, right? So we should ***ume the commandment is still in effect, and we should be out there executing round the clock, right?

You have made NO case for "God formerly commanding something and then later FORBIDDING it".

Matthew 5 and Luke 6

Father_JD

02-02-2009, 02:37 PM

Under OT law

---which you believe to be GOD'S law, right?

Yesiree...you do believe the Ten Commandments to be GOD'S law, correct?

Quote:
which was enforceable in a THEOCRACY in the land of Israel, YES, all of the above were subject to capital punishment. Did Jesus "forbid" such executions. NO, HE DID NOT. I'm ***uming you're using John 8 as some kind of anti-capital punishment sentiment from Jesus, no?

---No, I am not using John 8, I am using Matthew 5 and Luke 6, where Jesus gives new commandments that revoke or supersede the old ones that He gave the Israelites about 1000 years earlier: The old commandment was love your friends but hate your enemies, but the new one commands people to love and do good for their enemies. Sounds like a case of forbidding something that was previously a commandment.

Unless you can actually produce a scripture that states this, jeff...your argument has no merit. I believe Jesus is citing the TALMUD, which is NOT scripture. He said, "You have HEARD"...He did not say, "As it is WRITTEN..." Sorry, nice try but no bubble gum cigar for you!!

Quote:
FYI, for the law to be fully executable, the GUILTY MAN would have necessarily been brought to judgment as well. Note as well, Jesus did NOT FORBID the woman's stoning...or forbid capital punishment...EVER.

--Is this more arguments from silence? After all, Jesus did not forbid executing gay people, or witches, or disrespectful children, right? So we should ***ume the commandment is still in effect, and we should be out there executing round the clock, right?

You're not listening, jeff. These types of laws were enforceable ONLY under a theocracy in ancient Israel and/or when they still had the Sanhedrin. So NO, they're NOT in effect, but not FORBIDDEN by God which was the original argument which has been repeatedly equivocated by youse Mos!!

Quote:
You have made NO case for "God formerly commanding something and then later FORBIDDING it".

Matthew 5 and Luke 6

Doesn't qualify. See answer above.

nrajeff

02-02-2009, 09:27 PM

Under OT law
Yesiree...you do believe the Ten Commandments to be GOD'S law, correct?
--Of course, but The Law encomp***es far more than just the Decalogue.

I believe Jesus is citing the TALMUD, which is NOT scripture. He said, "You have HEARD"...He did not say, "As it is WRITTEN..." Sorry, nice try but no bubble gum cigar for you!!

--OK, fair enough, and besides I don't smoke--not even gum cigars--so I can cope with being denied my cigar. :)

So NO, they're NOT in effect, but not FORBIDDEN by God which was the original argument which has been repeatedly equivocated by youse Mos!!

--So you are publicly stating that murdering suspected hookers, witches, gays, and disrespectful children is currently not forbidden by God? Talk about a license to sin--what's being licensed here, is not even a sin! Is this mainstream Christian doctrine you are teaching here? Or are you out on the fringe with this "God doesn't forbid it" stuff? :confused::eek:

Father_JD

02-03-2009, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by Father_JD
Under OT law
Yesiree...you do believe the Ten Commandments to be GOD'S law, correct?

--Of course, but The Law encomp***es far more than just the Decalogue.

Good. You're the one making a case for God first commanding and then later FORBIDDING the law.

Quote:
I believe Jesus is citing the TALMUD, which is NOT scripture. He said, "You have HEARD"...He did not say, "As it is WRITTEN..." Sorry, nice try but no bubble gum cigar for you!!

--OK, fair enough, and besides I don't smoke--not even gum cigars--so I can cope with being denied my cigar.

So NOW you're admitting that Jesus didn't rescind the law? :eek:

Quote:
So NO, they're NOT in effect, but not FORBIDDEN by God which was the original argument which has been repeatedly equivocated by youse Mos!!

--So you are publicly stating that murdering suspected hookers, witches, gays, and disrespectful children is currently not forbidden by God?

It would be "forbidden" in the sense for us to take the law into our own hands because we aren't living under a theocracy. No one can rightly arrogate that kind of authority in this day and age. Civil government is STILL permitted by God for capital punishment for murder. CF Romans 13.

But, in the sense which YOU intended, NO, God hasn't "forbidden" in principle what He originally commanded. :)

Talk about a license to sin--what's being licensed here, is not even a sin! Is this mainstream Christian doctrine you are teaching here? Or are you out on the fringe with this "God doesn't forbid it" stuff?

You misunderstood the nature of the argument, jeff. That's all.

nrajeff

02-03-2009, 10:06 AM

Trinity

02-03-2009, 10:26 AM

nrajeff

02-03-2009, 10:45 AM

Uh, I guess it needs to be pointed out that my remarks were addressed to FATHER JD. Unless you really are the Trinity, and are truly a multi-person being, and Father JD is one of your personae, how about letting him respond? Or are manners--like humility--things you somehow think are beneath your self-exalted station?

Richard

02-03-2009, 11:29 AM

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-03-2009, 11:45 AM

That reflects the same discourse presented time after time by the atheists to discredit the Bible.

Trinity

Trinity, I have to interject here with an observation, and say that enemies of my faith often use the Bible to discredit my faith, but when that same discourse is applied to their own faith, they are not pleased to see that it has discredited their own.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-03-2009, 11:51 AM

Libby do your history and research of the times, not so much in comparing what is standard today and what was maybe at times essential than. Then ask if what Joseph Smith did was immoral, and if so how can you show proof that he was immoral.

Sincerely, Priest, HankSaint and Richard.

Welcome. Can we just call you Pre-HankSaint-Richard?:D
Kind of like Anti-Nephi-Lehi. NO?

Glad to have you here.

Father_JD

02-03-2009, 01:11 PM

Shoulda known it was YOU with your favored green-colored font!! Were you banished from CARM??

Cheers, Mate.

Father_JD

02-03-2009, 01:19 PM

So your theory is that if you went out and slaughtered some kids whom you suspected of being disrespectful to their parents, you'd go to jail for breaking MAN's laws, but what you did would be cool with God because He has never forbidden it? And here I was tempted to believe that the antis were right when they said the LDS were the dangerous cult with weird ideas! :eek::eek::eek:

No, didn't say that. And I didn't say it'd be "cool with God" to do so because NO ONE HAS THAT RIGHT to do so. The whole argument is regardlessly moot, since there is NO theocracy in Israel, NO Sanhedren, NO AUTHORITY FROM GOD to follow through with capital punishment for these types of offenses.

What authority CIVIL government does have from God is the putting to death of MURDERERS.

Why not address that as if that's been FORBIDDEN, jeff? :rolleyes:

Father_JD

02-03-2009, 01:20 PM

Now play nice, jeff.

Father_JD

02-03-2009, 01:21 PM

And just what do you think has been discredited here, figmeister? So far, both you and jeff are completely misunderstanding the nature of the argument:

Does God once COMMAND something and then FORBID it later?

Heart2Heart

02-03-2009, 06:09 PM

Libby do your history and research of the times, not so much in comparing what is standard today and what was maybe at times essential than. Then ask if what Joseph Smith did was immoral, and if so how can you show proof that he was immoral.

Sincerely, Priest, HankSaint and Richard.

Welcome to Walter Martin Forum. Are there three of you (Priest, HankSaint, and Richard) or one person with three ***les?

Richard

02-03-2009, 08:51 PM

Shoulda known it was YOU with your favored green-colored font!! Were you banished from CARM??

Cheers, Mate.

:)Yep, got banned because I posted a quote by Brian H. who called me a liar.
So because he calls me a liar I get banned, get it Father? Then good buddy I get banned again for complaining to the holier than I Administrator. Go figure, that's CARM for you. Fair and balanced, unless your Mormon. :D

Richard.

Heart2Heart

02-03-2009, 08:55 PM

:)Yep, got banned because I posted a quote by Brian H. who called me a liar.
So because he calls me a liar I get banned, get it Father? Then good buddy I get banned again for complaining to the holier than I Administrator. Go figure, that's CARM for you. Fair and balanced, unless your Mormon. :D

Richard.

Why do you guys keep going back to CARM, if they treat you guys in this manner?

Richard

02-03-2009, 08:55 PM

Welcome to Walter Martin Forum. Are there three of you (Priest, HankSaint, and Richard) or one person with three ***les?

Thanks for the welcome, on CARM it is Priest, it once was HankSaint, and on CC it was Richard, where I just got banned. :eek:

Richard.

Heart2Heart

02-03-2009, 08:56 PM

Thanks for the welcome, on CARM it is Priest, it once was HankSaint, and on CC it was Richard, where I just got banned. :eek:

Richard.

What is CC?

Richard

02-03-2009, 09:22 PM

What is CC?

Well if you want to waste some extra time, go to Concerned Christians the FAIR and BALANCED Forum. :rolleyes:

Richard.

Heart2Heart

02-03-2009, 10:15 PM

Trinity

02-03-2009, 11:46 PM

Trinity, I have to interject here with an observation, and say that enemies of my faith often use the Bible to discredit my faith, but when that same discourse is applied to their own faith, they are not pleased to see that it has discredited their own.

I can understand that it is not pleasant. The problem exists also when the sacred texts are confronted betwen Christians and Jews, or Christians and Muslims. Vice-versa.

I agree with you that the Bible is not a scientific book, neither a historical book like any modern historical book. However, it was the revelation of God for the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims, for around fifteen hundred years. Almost the same lenght of time taken by the variety of authors to write this book. According to the geopolitical perspective and the anthropology the book has many virtues. Before Christmas, archeologists have found the tomb of Pontius Pilate. Before, some had this pretexte that Pilate has never existed. This is why the Christians cherish the Bible. Several historical cer***udes bring them security and a confort zone.

Perhaps the Book of Mormon could also have some very inspired elements, but this is also true with the philosophy inside the tale of the Lord of the Rings. In our modern world, believers need parameters. Some good reasons to beleive. This is why they find safety in the old tradition. Tradition who was re***essed so many times throughout the centuries or during the Christian era.

Trinity

Libby

02-04-2009, 03:15 AM

Libby do your history and research of the times, not so much in comparing what is standard today and what was maybe at times essential than. Then ask if what Joseph Smith did was immoral, and if so how can you show proof that he was immoral.

Sincerely, Priest, HankSaint and Richard.

Hi Richard. :)

I did that. I don't think it's ever been socially acceptable to marry other men's wives (at least, not while they are still married and their husband's still living).

I've also seen evidence that the average age for marriage in the 1800's was around age 20-21.

Father_JD

02-04-2009, 05:10 AM

:)Yep, got banned because I posted a quote by Brian H. who called me a liar.
So because he calls me a liar I get banned, get it Father? Then good buddy I get banned again for complaining to the holier than I Administrator. Go figure, that's CARM for you. Fair and balanced, unless your Mormon. :D

Richard.

There's a fine line at CARM...a line I have crossed several times which earned me warnings, but fell short of being actually banned. I think it depends on how one is calling another a "liar"! :p

Richard

02-04-2009, 08:50 AM

Hi Richard. :)

I did that. I don't think it's ever been socially acceptable to marry other men's wives (at least, not while they are still married and their husband's still living).

I've also seen evidence that the average age for marriage in the 1800's was around age 20-21.

That would indicate that many younger women married earlier to keep that average as low as it is. I added this link for you to read, it is very interesting and deserves your attention.

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=10&num=2&id=291

Libby

02-04-2009, 09:25 PM

That would indicate that many younger women married earlier to keep that average as low as it is. I added this link for you to read, it is very interesting and deserves your attention.

http://mi.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=10&num=2&id=291

Well, I read about halfway through that link, Richard. Pretty confusing. What did you get out of it that you would want me to know about?

Richard

02-04-2009, 11:33 PM

Well, I read about halfway through that link, Richard. Pretty confusing. What did you get out of it that you would want me to know about?

Just some observations, history, witnesses, and some reality all mixed in to show a much less harsh version than those who had a agenda of hate towards Joseph. Facts and evidence are only as good as the one wanting to write and research some non bias reporting, and that is never going to be easy to find in anyone.

Whereas you have doubts, I have conviction. So we end up with 13 million members, some kids and some new, but in general very accepting of the problem of polygamy.

Richard.

Libby

02-05-2009, 01:05 AM

Just some observations, history, witnesses, and some reality all mixed in to show a much less harsh version than those who had a agenda of hate towards Joseph. Facts and evidence are only as good as the one wanting to write and research some non bias reporting, and that is never going to be easy to find in anyone.

Whereas you have doubts, I have conviction. So we end up with 13 million members, some kids and some new, but in general very accepting of the problem of polygamy.

Richard.

Most are accepting (I suppose?) or perhaps don't even know that much about it. I had a discussion about this with my Home Teacher and he knew very little about Joseph's early wives. He said, he "wasn't sure that Joseph married other men's wives". I have also talked to several women who have had their problems with polygamy (even TBM's) to some degree or another.

I understand your point about "agenda" and bias, though. I agree information can always be slanted and heaven knows there are all kinds of "slants" out there on Joseph.

Thanks for the link. I have been kind of tired today (not enough sleep), so I will look at it again when I'm more rested.

Russ

02-05-2009, 07:26 AM

Well, I read about halfway through that link, Richard. Pretty confusing. What did you get out of it that you would want me to know about?

Me too... and agreed that it's confusing.

P.S. As I'm sure you noticed, Richard also stepped around Joseph marrying other men's wives. I wonder if the silence is indicative of Richard's agreement and support of such practices? :D

Richard

02-05-2009, 08:34 AM

Me too... and agreed that it's confusing.

P.S. As I'm sure you noticed, Richard also stepped around Joseph marrying other men's wives. I wonder if the silence is indicative of Richard's agreement and support of such practices? :D

Russ before you go around shooting off your mouth, read the URL. It addresses that also. What is nice about this FORUM so far, versus CC and CARM, is that I have not been deleted yet for posting a URL from a Apologist site.

Interesting Russ.

Richard. :D

Russ

02-05-2009, 08:26 PM

Russ before you go around shooting off your mouth, read the URL. It addresses that also. What is nice about this FORUM so far, versus CC and CARM, is that I have not been deleted yet for posting a URL from a Apologist site.

Interesting Russ.

Richard. :D

Richard, do you agree that marrying other mens' wives is "of God?"

Many knew Smith's character for what it was; speaking of men shooting their mouths off. Smith had a certain, how do we say, lust for the fairer sex.

Richard

02-06-2009, 08:02 AM

[QUOTE=Russ;5035]Richard, do you agree that marrying other mens' wives is "of God?"

Better stated by George Q. Cannon than me:

No woman can enter into the celestial kingdom any more than a man whose will is in opposition to the will of God. When God speaks all must submit to it. It may not be pleasant to us; it may come in conflict with our traditions; it may not be that which will suit us if we had the choosing. There are a great many things which would not suit us if we had the choosing, according to our natural feelings, for these are often far from correct. But whatever feelings we may have which may be the result of tradition and false education, we must get rid of and be willing to do that which God requires at our hands. And it is the experience of the women of this Church who have done that—I speak now of plural marriage, for that is one of the most trying things—those who have submitted to this order, have reached a point where they enjoy true happiness, because in sacrificing their own will they have the consciousness of knowing that they have done the will of God; and in their supplications to Him they can ask Him in confidence for such blessings as they stand in need of. Where is the man or the woman who has been diligent in observing the requirements of God, who has failed upon any point upon which he has sought earnestly to God? If there are any, there must be something lacking, they have not that claim upon God which they would have if they had submitted perfectly to the requirements made of them.

Russ, being obedient to God is paramount to all else. I don't know the details of your above issue, maybe you can enlighten me with the full history behind each of those marriages. Our guest and visitors would like to see examples and reasons given by both sides.

Many knew Smith's character for what it was; speaking of men shooting their mouths off. Smith had a certain, how do we say, lust for the fairer sex.

Being a little judgmental Russ? What you may hope to believe, is not at all provable good buddy. Did you read the article friend. I would invite all guest and visitors to decide, Russ accuses Joseph of being lustful, yet usually that would be followed with some citation, witness, or evidence, otherwise one should be careful how he judges another.

Love ya, Russ.

Richard.

Russ

02-06-2009, 08:20 AM

Being a little judgmental Russ? What you may hope to believe, is not at all provable good buddy. Did you read the article friend. I would invite all guest and visitors to decide, Russ accuses Joseph of being lustful, yet usually that would be followed with some citation, witness, or evidence, otherwise one should be careful how he judges another.

Love ya, Russ.

Richard.

Richard, we all judge. Anytime we say a person is doing something that he ought not do, such as running a red light and smashing into someone else's car, we are making a moral judgement. Jesus himself told us to judge rightly.

Matthew ch. 7 states, "don't judge." That's a verse which is taken grossly out of context. The whole of the chapter is addressed to the hypocrite, not the discerning.

It is self-evident that Smith's actions of marrying other men's wives is disgusting. There was nothing righteous about it. If Smith were around today he'd be in jail with Warren Jeffs.

Richard, again, do you agree that marrying other mens' wives is "of God?"

Richard

02-06-2009, 09:02 AM

Russ

02-06-2009, 08:36 PM

Jesus himself told us to judge rightly.

Matthew ch. 7 states, "don't judge." That's a verse which is taken grossly out of context. The whole of the chapter is addressed to the hypocrite, not the discerning.

One good way to discern Russ, is to have evidence and facts. So do the right thing and Judge Rightly. Methinks your beam is getting in the way of accuracy.

Richard.

PS, re-read my post, I answered your question.

I read your post twice before I responded to it, making sure I didn't overlook anything. I read it again just now and I'm still wondering what your answer is to the question "Do you believe marrying other mens' wives if "of God?"

"Scoundrelous" would be my new adjective for such behavior.

Such (ahem) prophets are clearly scoundrelous.

If people only knew the real Joseph and not the one presented by people such as yourself.

Richard

02-06-2009, 09:03 PM

I read your post twice before I responded to it, making sure I didn't overlook anything. I read it again just now and I'm still wondering what your answer is to the question "Do you believe marrying other mens' wives if "of God?"

"Scoundrelous" would be my new adjective for such behavior.

Such (ahem) prophets are clearly scoundrelous.

If people only knew the real Joseph and not the one presented by people such as yourself.

First of all, show me where it was a civil marriage, and not a celestial or sealing marriage.

Facts and evidence please.

Richard.

Russ

02-07-2009, 09:12 AM

First of all, show me where it was a civil marriage, and not a celestial or sealing marriage.

Facts and evidence please.

Richard.

What difference would it make to you? Would you leave the LDS church?

On the off chance that you might recognize the problem:

http://wivesofjosephsmith.org

P.S. Again, do you think it's "of God" that a man should marry another man's wife behind the husband's back?

I'll tell you what I'd do if the pastor of my church was found doing that.

I'd talk to the deacons. The deacons would seek to have him removed from the pulpit. Immediately if not sooner.

If they somehow refused to seek his removal, I'd change churches. Immediately if not sooner.

Why?

Because the pastor was not honoring his wife and his "burning in the britches" would cause me to know that he was more interested in his lusts than his ministry.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-07-2009, 04:42 PM

What difference would it make to you? Would you leave the LDS church?

On the off chance that you might recognize the problem:

http://wivesofjosephsmith.org

P.S. Again, do you think it's "of God" that a man should marry another man's wife behind the husband's back?

I'll tell you what I'd do if the pastor of my church was found doing that.

I'd talk to the deacons. The deacons would seek to have him removed from the pulpit. Immediately if not sooner.

If they somehow refused to seek his removal, I'd change churches. Immediately if not sooner.

Why?

Because the pastor was not honoring his wife and his "burning in the britches" would cause me to know that he was more interested in his lusts than his ministry.

Russ, are you enjoying the dark?

The site wives of Joseph site says this:

"Upon Joseph’s death, many of his wives married Brigham Young or Heber C. Kimball and migrated to Utah."

Not a lot is known about the practice of "sealing" in the early days. The historical record is incomplete.

Now, it seems to me that your only perspective goes something like this: "How was sex and scandal involved". And you have proven incapable of any other perspective than that.

And that is why you will always remain in the dark. Good luck.

Richard

02-07-2009, 06:00 PM

Russ, are you enjoying the dark?

The site wives of Joseph site says this:

"Upon Joseph’s death, many of his wives married Brigham Young or Heber C. Kimball and migrated to Utah."

Not a lot is known about the practice of "sealing" in the early days. The historical record is incomplete.

Now, it seems to me that your only perspective goes something like this: "How was sex and scandal involved". And you have proven incapable of any other perspective than that.

And that is why you will always remain in the dark. Good luck.

:o:confused::(:eek: what one fits Russ, or maybe it depends on what time of the moth it is. Interesting.

Richard.

Russ

02-07-2009, 06:24 PM

:o:confused::(:eek: what one fits Russ, or maybe it depends on what time of the moth it is. Interesting.

Richard.

I'll have to ***ume that since neither you nor Fig have denounced Smith's marrying other mens' wives that you therefore support his actions.

A friendly word of advice.

Stay away from Christian wives.

Their allegiance to their husbands will cause your advances to be front page news.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-07-2009, 07:10 PM

I'll have to ***ume that since neither you nor Fig have denounced Smith's marrying other mens' wives that you therefore support his actions.

A friendly word of advice.

Stay away from Christian wives.

Their allegiance to their husbands will cause your advances to be front page news.

Russ, if your wife ever joins the LDS Church, and wishes to be sealed to a worthy husband, it will eventually happen. Whether in life or death. And you will be left alone. Are you sure you want that? If you truly love each other, there is no reason you would not want to be together in the next life.

Richard

02-07-2009, 07:42 PM

Russ

02-08-2009, 08:42 AM

Russ, if your wife ever joins the LDS Church, and wishes to be sealed to a worthy husband, it will eventually happen. Whether in life or death. And you will be left alone. Are you sure you want that? If you truly love each other, there is no reason you would not want to be together in the next life.

Fig, I just told my wife what you wrote.

http://www.mormondoctrine.net/images/Christine.JPG

She giggled and said: "WHATever!"

That picture was taken on a recent visit to Concerned Christians in Mesa, AZ and it fits her precious "WHATever!" perfectly.

She loves Mormons (such as our former Mormon neighbors), but she'll have nothing to do with becoming a Goddess wife over another planet where she'll "procreate" spirit children along with her other "sister wives."

Looks like ah gotz mahself ah real keeper right there, boyz.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-08-2009, 08:53 AM

Fig, I just told my wife what you wrote.

http://www.mormondoctrine.net/images/Christine.JPG

She giggled and said: "WHATever!"

That picture was taken on a recent visit to Concerned Christians in Mesa, AZ and it fits her precious "WHATever!" perfectly.

She loves Mormons (such as our former Mormon neighbors), but she'll have nothing to do with becoming a Goddess wife over another planet where she'll "procreate" spirit children along with her other "sister wives."

Looks like ah gotz mahself ah real keeper right there, boyz.

Do you love her enough to keep her past this life?

Russ

02-08-2009, 09:40 AM

Do you love her enough to keep her past this life?

She knows that Jesus is her salvation, not me.

The LDS concept that men will, if they're faithful to LDS covenants, call their wives into heaven by their secret new names is unbiblical, non-Christian and heretical.

Russ

02-08-2009, 10:11 AM

Do you love her enough to keep her past this life?

I'm just wondering.

***uming you're married, how does your wife feel about sharing you with her "sister wives" in the LDS hereafter where you'll rule as a God over your own planets?

How does she feel about sharing you with other wives on this planet? (Just in case the LDS prophets receive another "revelation" that polygamy is back in.)

Russ

02-08-2009, 10:26 AM

Did you ever see the pictures of Brighams wives? The word Charity comes to mind. I'm bad. ;)

Richard.

I'm ***uming that you're alleging that the women were ugly. As if you're God's gift to women?

That's an ugly thing to say about them.

Trinity

02-08-2009, 11:48 AM

Russ

02-08-2009, 12:10 PM

A man who is married with two, three or more wives is a polygamist. But how we call a woman who married with two husbands? Bigamy? Polyandry?

I think it is polyandry.

Frankly, if Joseph Smith would had taken my wife, he would have his nose broken and possibly a broken arm also. In this obscure Far West era, I may have to shoot him.

Any man who let his wife go with Smith, was a sissy.

Trinity

Exactly. Where ever Smith went, people told him to get lost. "Prophet" Smith earned his reputation.

nrajeff

02-08-2009, 05:21 PM

Exactly. Where ever Smith went, people told him to get lost.

---Sounds a lot like the treatment Jesus got in many places He went. I reject the idea that "being told to get lost"--having his teachings rejected or met with hostility--proves that Jesus was a bad person.

Father_JD

02-08-2009, 05:23 PM

You really don't quite realize that your equating JS with Jesus is nothing short of blasphemous.

Russ

02-08-2009, 05:44 PM

---Sounds a lot like the treatment Jesus got in many places He went. I reject the idea that "being told to get lost"--having his teachings rejected or met with hostility--proves that Jesus was a bad person.

Jesus wasn't marrying other men's wives.

Smith was being run out of town after town for very different reasons than Jesus.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-08-2009, 06:52 PM

You really don't quite realize that your equating JS with Jesus is nothing short of blasphemous.

How so?

Joseph Smith stands next to Jesus Christ as the man having done more for the salvation of mankind in this world than any other person who ever lived, 'save only' Jesus Christ.

It's true. And your failure to see it speaks volumes for you inability to detect light from darkness.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-08-2009, 06:53 PM

Jesus wasn't marrying other men's wives.

Smith was being run out of town after town for very different reasons than Jesus.

Joseph Smith was being run outta town from the age of 14. Long before Plural Marriage was ever an issue.

Russ

02-08-2009, 07:46 PM

Joseph Smith was being run outta town from the age of 14. Long before Plural Marriage was ever an issue.

Right you are.

Everything from his tall tales, to his occultism to his chasing after other men's wives, to his aberrant religious views, to his political views, people didn't want him in their towns. So they chased him off.

Good for them.

nrajeff

02-08-2009, 08:01 PM

You really don't quite realize that your equating JS with Jesus is nothing short of blasphemous.

---That is because I wasn't aware that I was EQUATING them. Comparing them, in terms of the hostile reception they both got? Guilty as charged. Stating that in both cases, it's a fallacy to think "He got run outta town, therefore he was an evil person" ? Again, guilty (of being logical) as charged.

BTW, speaking of the issue of men having multiple "wives," I just saw in the news that Bee Gee Robin Gibb is in a bit of trouble for having an affair (resulting in baby) with his much-younger housekeeper.

http://www.abc4.com/mostpopular/story/Gibb-fathers-lovechild-with-housekeeper/UNHw7TkufEuzwvAxEGr9lg.cspx

Robin Gibb is an Englishman, right? An ANGLICAN, perhaps? Got some pastorly words for him? His wife was fine with him having the affair, by the way, because she had taken a vow of abstinence and didn't want her husband to have to "suffer." It was the pregnancy that she was not OK with.

nrajeff

02-08-2009, 08:06 PM

... his chasing after other men's wives,

---EXACTLY how many of these other men's non-LDS wives did he chase after? It was, after all, the NON-LDS who were running him out of their towns, right? The LDS didn't run him out of Nauvoo, or Kirtland, or Missouri. So if he was, as you claim, run out of town for chasing other men's wives, then there must be a long list of non-LDS husbands who hated him. Which means their wives must make up a long list. Right? So let's see it.

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-08-2009, 09:29 PM

---That is because I wasn't aware that I was EQUATING them. Comparing them, in terms of the hostile reception they both got? Guilty as charged. Stating that in both cases, it's a fallacy to think "He got run outta town, therefore he was an evil person" ? Again, guilty (of being logical) as charged.

BTW, speaking of the issue of men having multiple "wives," I just saw in the news that Bee Gee Robin Gibb is in a bit of trouble for having an affair (resulting in baby) with his much-younger housekeeper.

http://www.abc4.com/mostpopular/story/Gibb-fathers-lovechild-with-housekeeper/UNHw7TkufEuzwvAxEGr9lg.cspx

Robin Gibb is an Englishman, right? An ANGLICAN, perhaps? Got some pastorly words for him? His wife was fine with him having the affair, by the way, because she had taken a vow of abstinence and didn't want her husband to have to "suffer." It was the pregnancy that she was not OK with.

Good point Jeff. People should consider their own beam before accusing others of having one.

nrajeff

02-09-2009, 12:13 AM

Well, technically, Gibb wasn't married to the housekeeper--only to Mrs. Gibb. So that makes it okay, right? :D

SavedbyTruth

02-09-2009, 03:00 AM

Well, technically, Gibb wasn't married to the housekeeper--only to Mrs. Gibb. So that makes it okay, right? :D

Technically, Russ refuses to see the truth about Joseph Smith. Where are the convictions supporting the accusations brought against Joseph Smith in the courts? Where are all of the children he had with other women?

It appears Russ is the one who is fixated on sex with more than one woman in marriage. He is not interested in the truth about why the wives of other men were sealed to JS. I see no evil in the motives of JS. But I certainly see evil in Russ's desire to turn this into something it never was.

SbT

Father_JD

02-09-2009, 04:57 AM

How so?

Joseph Smith stands next to Jesus Christ as the man having done more for the salvation of mankind in this world than any other person who ever lived, 'save only' Jesus Christ.

It's true. And your failure to see it speaks volumes for you inability to detect light from darkness.

Yes, fig...I know that's what YOU believe, but the TRUTH of the matter is that Joseph Smith did NO SUCH THING and there's NOTHING objective to support your contention ofr his "prophethood". He FAILED the prophetic tests of scripture:

1. Gave FALSE prophecies (which even Mos admit he did)
2. Lead you after FALSE "gods"...a deity who hasn't always been God but progressed to it.

The LIGHT of scripture declares you DECEIVED, fig. Repent from your IDOLATRY. :eek:

Father_JD

02-09-2009, 05:03 AM

Originally Posted by Father_JD
You really don't quite realize that your equating JS with Jesus is nothing short of blasphemous.

---That is because I wasn't aware that I was EQUATING them. Comparing them, in terms of the hostile reception they both got? Guilty as charged. Stating that in both cases, it's a fallacy to think "He got run outta town, therefore he was an evil person" ? Again, guilty (of being logical) as charged.

No, more like JS was like Baalam and OTHER false prophets whom the Lord had SLAIN. ;)

BTW, speaking of the issue of men having multiple "wives," I just saw in the news that Bee Gee Robin Gibb is in a bit of trouble for having an affair (resulting in baby) with his much-younger housekeeper.

http://www.abc4.com/mostpopular/stor...vAxEGr9lg.cspx

Robin Gibb is an Englishman, right? An ANGLICAN, perhaps? Got some pastorly words for him? His wife was fine with him having the affair, by the way, because she had taken a vow of abstinence and didn't want her husband to have to "suffer." It was the pregnancy that she was not OK with.

What does THIS have to do with anything, jeff? Are you that desperate? What you ALWAYS fail to understand is that one is ONLY Christian if BORN AGAIN. There's little evidence if any at all that the Brothers Gibb are or were confessing Christians. I don't think they've ever claimed to be so and just because one is brought up in a "denomination" or "communion" doesn't make them "Christian".

But thanks for the red herring...:rolleyes:

Father_JD

02-09-2009, 05:04 AM

Well, technically, Gibb wasn't married to the housekeeper--only to Mrs. Gibb. So that makes it okay, right? :D

Yeah. Maybe he had a "revelation" just like Joseph Smith that the housekeeper was to be his "spiritual" (i.e. CARNAL) wife, jeff!! :p

nrajeff

02-09-2009, 07:29 AM

Father_JD

02-09-2009, 07:50 AM

Well, mentioning the BeeGee story was not serious, since my personal belief is that it's a fallacy to jump to conclusions about a church, based on the bad example and actions of one of its members. But there are some antis who get all excited whenever a person who might once have been LDS gets arrested. They waste no time gleefully, mockingly parading the news around the Internet, and saying, in effect, "SEE? Proof that the LDS church is an evil, unChristian, cultlike...cult..." etc., etc.

So I was just doing some of that good old "mirroring," in the best Seebok tradition. :D

Gotcha. I think what kind of example that would really be ****ogus, an apple to apple comparison would be to find a prominent self-professing Christian who's found to have been doing some really bad things (heck, I'll even help you out by mentioning Ted Haggard) with self-professed LDS who are likewise guilty of some heinous sins! :eek:

Proffering some prominent person's behavior as "proof" or validity of their theology is pretty dicey, I think.

Richard

02-09-2009, 08:07 AM

A man who is married with two, three or more wives is a polygamist. But how we call a woman who married with two husbands? Bigamy? Polyandry?

I think it is polyandry.

Frankly, if Joseph Smith would had taken my wife, he would have his nose broken and possibly a broken arm also. If I was living in this obscure Far West era, I may have to shoot him.

Any man who let his wife go with Smith, was a sissy.

Trinity

I imagine you would have been part of the group who also in a cowardly way tared and feathered Joseph. Also ran them off their farms and property, burned their homes, churches, temples. Yes, these were real, real men. :mad:

Richard.

Richard

02-09-2009, 08:17 AM

You really don't quite realize that your equating JS with Jesus is nothing short of blasphemous.

How in the world did you arrive at that? Jeff was comparing a action, not a ***le or position of Revered God Head. Interesting as always.

Richard.

Richard

02-09-2009, 08:21 AM

Good point Jeff. People should consider their own beam before accusing others of having one.

I don't think it's a beam Fig, just plain blind. :rolleyes:

Richard.

Richard

02-09-2009, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by Father_JD
You really don't quite realize that your equating JS with Jesus is nothing short of blasphemous.

No, more like JS was like Baalam and OTHER false prophets whom the Lord had SLAIN. ;)

What does THIS have to do with anything, jeff? Are you that desperate? What you ALWAYS fail to understand is that one is ONLY Christian if BORN AGAIN. There's little evidence if any at all that the Brothers Gibb are or were confessing Christians. I don't think they've ever claimed to be so and just because one is brought up in a "denomination" or "communion" doesn't make them "Christian".

But thanks for the red herring...:rolleyes:

Aw, the born again syndrome, throw out Repentance and Baptism ------ confess your belief In Christ and all else is unnecessary.
A great concept and precept, most likely the doctrine coming from Professors of Theology. Throw out any verses that talk about Baptism and Repentance in the NT. Again interesting indeed.

Richard.

Richard

02-09-2009, 08:38 AM

Jesus wasn't marrying other men's wives.

Smith was being run out of town after town for very different reasons than Jesus.

Yes he was run out of town, people did not like the idea he communed with God. What a foreign idea, after all the Heavens were closed to any more revelations from God:

II Nephi 29 of the Book of Mormon says “many of the
Gentiles shall say: A Bible, A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more
Bible—Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible.
Have ye obtained a Bible save it were by the Jews?—Wherefore, because that ye have a
Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I
have not caused more to be written” (verses 3, 6, & 10).

Richard. :)

Richard

02-09-2009, 08:42 AM

Right you are.

Everything from his tall tales, to his occultism to his chasing after other men's wives, to his aberrant religious views, to his political views, people didn't want him in their towns. So they chased him off.

Good for them.

Thank goodness that today we don't get run of of town for religious views, political views, and just people didn't want us around. Me thinks Russ would have been one of those doing the chasing.

R. :)

Trinity

02-09-2009, 10:13 AM

I imagine you would have been part of the group who also in a cowardly way tar and feathered Joseph. Also ran them off their farms and property, burned their homes, churches, temples. Yes, these were real, real men. :mad:

Richard.

No.

He could have had a problem with me only if he would had messed the life of the people in my house. At this condition, in that time, I would have killed him.

Trinity

Fig-bearing Thistle

02-09-2009, 10:57 AM

No.

He could have had a problem with me only if he would had messed the life of the people in my house. At this condition, in that time, I would have killed him.

Trinity

I think we all feel that way with such an IF statement. "IF" for example you, or Russ, or Father JD had messed with our wives or our children, we probably would have killed you as well, in that time.

Father_JD

02-09-2009, 02:32 PM

Aw, the born again syndrome, throw out Repentance and Baptism ------ confess your belief In Christ and all else is unnecessary.
A great concept and precept, most likely the doctrine coming from Professors of Theology. Throw out any verses that talk about Baptism and Repentance in the NT. Again interesting indeed.

Richard.

Thanks for demonstrating zero comprehension of what being "born again" MEANS. Who said repentance is unnecessary? You're clueless to the reality that WHAT we do is a result of WHO we are. :eek:

Trinity

02-09-2009, 02:47 PM

I think we all feel that way with such an IF statement. "IF" for example you, or Russ, or Father JD had messed with our wives or our children, we probably would have killed you as well, in that time.

We agree. :)

Trinity

Mesenja

02-16-2009, 05:58 AM

Thanks for demonstrating zero comprehension of what being "born again" MEANS. Who said repentance is unnecessary? You're clueless to the reality that WHAT we do is a result of WHO we are. :eek:

The Book of Mormon explains very clearly not only the need for being born again but also what this means and how to achieve it. You remember FatherJD the same text you dismiss as screed so as giving you no need to study it and at the same time prattle on about how your years of church membership makes you an expert witness. Well I got news for you FatherJD. Sitting in a church pew doesn't magically give you knowledge as if by osmosis. But I can see by your posts the reason why and the source of the hot air you are ****ing in direction is coming from. We are also very aware that what we do is the result of who we are.

Father_JD

02-16-2009, 09:08 PM

The Book of Mormon explains very clearly not only the need for being born again but also what this means and how to achieve it...

I don't give a flip what your "screed" tells you, messdude. But BIBLICALLY, one can NOT "achieve" being "born again". It's solely the work of the HOLY SPIRIT.

You remember FatherJD the same text you dismiss as screed so as giving you no need to study it and at the same time prattle on about how your years of church membership makes you an expert witness.

You've never demonstrated error on my part, messy. Mormonism's soteriology is: faith + WORKS. :eek:

Well I got news for you FatherJD. Sitting in a church pew doesn't magically give you knowledge as if by osmosis. But I can see by your posts the reason why and the source of the hot air you are ****ing in direction is coming from. We are also very aware that what we do is the result of who we are.

No, you're merely paying lip-service to this Biblical doctrine. You've exposed your hand many times, messy with your misunderstanding of "free will": In your scenario, one chooses to be good one day, and bad the next...and if the "good" outweighs the "bad" that one just might make it to one of your mult-tiered "heavens"!! :eek:

SavedbyTruth

02-16-2009, 10:19 PM

I don't give a flip what your "screed" tells you, messdude. But BIBLICALLY, one can NOT "achieve" being "born again". It's solely the work of the HOLY SPIRIT.

You've never demonstrated error on my part, messy. Mormonism's soteriology is: faith + WORKS. :eek:

No, you're merely paying lip-service to this Biblical doctrine. You've exposed your hand many times, messy with your misunderstanding of "free will": In your scenario, one chooses to be good one day, and bad the next...and if the "good" outweighs the "bad" that one just might make it to one of your mult-tiered "heavens"!! :eek:

Why do you insist on making the claim faith plus works is what the LDS believe? Faith in Jesus Christ is required to be saved. HOWEVER, Faith without works is dead. In other words, it takes some effort on your part to determine where you are going to go in the heavens prepared for us.

By stating only "faith plus works", you are misrepresenting our beliefs. Inasmuch as faith is Biblical, and "faith without works is dead" is also Biblical, I fail to see the logic in YOUR belief that ALL you need is faith. If, after you profess faith in Jesus Christ (at which point you are saved), you fail to do "works", you can no longer progress. Why do YOU ignore the "works"? You keep trying to make claims that the LDS beliefs are not Biblical (and incorrectly so); yet YOU ignore a key element in the teachings of our Savior, Jesus Christ?

Can YOU explain that???

Thank you,

SavedbyTruth

Father_JD

02-17-2009, 05:02 PM

Why do you insist on making the claim faith plus works is what the LDS believe? Faith in Jesus Christ is required to be saved. HOWEVER, Faith without works is . In other words, it takes some effort on your part to determine where you are going to go in the heavens prepared for us.

Thanks for contradicting yourself:

Faith is required.
Works are required.

Therefore, Mormon soteriology is: Faith + WORKS. It's almost amusing to see Mos completely contradict themselves in just one paragraph. :p

By stating only "faith plus works", you are misrepresenting our beliefs. Inasmuch as faith is Biblical, and "faith without works is " is also Biblical, I fail to see the logic in YOUR belief that ALL you need is faith. If, after you profess faith in Jesus Christ (at which point you are saved), you fail to do "works", you can no longer progress. Why do YOU ignore the "works"? You keep trying to make claims that the LDS beliefs are not Biblical (and incorrectly so); yet YOU ignore a key element in the teachings of our Savior, Jesus Christ?

Can YOU explain that???

You just AFFIRMED "faith plus works" as somehow misrepresnting your beliefs, but then AFFIRMED that WORKS ARE NECESSARY FOR SALVATION thereby contradicting yourself.

Works are an outworking of that FAITH THAT SAVES.

SavedbyTruth

02-17-2009, 05:37 PM

Thanks for contradicting yourself:

Faith is required.
Works are required.

Therefore, Mormon soteriology is: Faith + WORKS. It's almost amusing to see Mos completely contradict themselves in just one paragraph. :p

I have NOT contradicted myself. And why do you keep ignoring "faith without works is dead"? It seems to be so offensive to you, you couldn't even include the word "dead" when you copied part of my response.

You have also chosen to ignore the meaning of my words "it takes some effort on your part to determine where you are going to go in the heavens prepared for us". I did not say you are not saved. They DO indicate YOU have some responsibility - it is not a free ride.

I have to say, this is a very weak argument against the LDS Church. Every single time I point out that the Bible teaches "faith without works is dead", it is ignored as if it did not exist.

You just AFFIRMED "faith plus works" as somehow misrepresnting your beliefs, but then AFFIRMED that WORKS ARE NECESSARY FOR SALVATION thereby contradicting yourself.

Works are an outworking of that FAITH THAT SAVES.

Why do you refuse to see what I wrote? I affirmed no such thing. You actually have the chance, in this life, to either produce works or not. It is works that help determine where in heaven you will end up. It is NOT works that save. If you want to spend eternity in a lower level of heaven that is up to you. You certainly will not be able to pretend you didn't know, however, that faith goes hand-in-hand in determining where you wind up.

SavedbyTruth