Off shoots

[Snow Patrol]

I happened to peruse the LDS board on another site. On it, it had a link to a picture of the FLDS temple in Texas that had a bed as one of its altars. At the bottom of the initial post there was a "reason" why this pertained to the LDS board. The reason they gave was that the FLDS got their start, or are an off shoot, from the LDS Church.

My question is... is it accurate and appropriate to bring in "off shoots" or "break aways" from a main body of believers in order to make the main body of believers look evil or wrong?

If you think the answer is NO, it shouldn't happen AND you are Christian, then why do you think that no other Christian on this other board came out and said anything?

If you think the answer is Yes, then are you prepared to have the mirror placed before you?

[Dante]

Experience on these types of boards would suggest that it is fair game to bring that type of criticism against the LDS due to the "continuing revelation" mentality it fosters in these misbegotten offshoots.

And conversely, the mirror is off limits.

Seebok, where for art thou?

[Libby]

I don't think it's really fair, even though the churches have the same roots. Obviously, they each believe the other is apostate, because of following false prophets...so, they have each gone their own way, in many respects, each becoming quite different from the other.

I miss Seebok. Wonder if we will see him here again?

[Dante]

Did he get booted, just decided it wasn't worth the time anymore or on a secret government mission? ;)

[Libby]

I don't think he got booted, but the last two are definitely possibilities. :)

[BrianH]

My question is... is it accurate and appropriate to bring in "off shoots" or "break aways" from a main body of believers in order to make the main body of believers look evil or wrong?

Depends on the context of the conversation.

Generally speaking, would you abide by the same restrictions that you seek to impose on your critics?

-BH

.

[nrajeff]

I can't see myself using the Branch Davidian fiasco as proof that SDA is evil.

[Snow Patrol]

Depends on the context of the conversation.


What would qualify as an acceptable context?



Generally speaking, would you abide by the same restrictions that you seek to impose on your critics?


Absolutely. However, I will readily admit that I would not hesitate to bring the mirror out if the LDS critic initiates the topic.

[BrianH]

What would qualify as an acceptable context?

It is inappropriate, or at least inaccurate to hold LDS accountable for the teachings of some LDS offshoot that is deviating from LDS normative theology. OTH, if the offshoot is actually doing what the LDS "prophet" both taught and lived as an example, then there is a place for a debate on the matter.

That there ARE offshoots of biblical Christianity is no argument against biblical Christianity. The claims, scriptures, and other official representation of any religion can only be rightly evaluated on their own terms. Claiming for example that biblical Christianity is FALSE because the Westboro "Baptist" church carries signs that that announce "God Hates ***s" or that God is pleased to see dead U.S. soldiers is really just a red herring. The claims of Christianity do NOT include that God hates ***s, nor is there evidence in the claims of Christ or the Bible that God loves to see U.S. servicemen killed. That is the message of the Westboro Baptist church, not the Bible.

Similarly, if some wild hair offshoot of the LDS somewhere in the dessert starts killing and eating small children, it would be wrong to blame the LDS for that behavior.

But the problem you guys face is that your founding "prophet" both taught and clearly lived out the example of marrying adolescent girls and the wives of other men and he attributed his practices and teachings to God himself. While this is not currently "official doctrine" of the LDS it absolutely was the official doctrine of your founding prophet who blamed it on God. That makes Joseph Smith a FALSE prophet even when compared to your own (LDS) current doctrine.

-BH

.

[Richard]

It is inappropriate, or at least inaccurate to hold LDS accountable for the teachings of some LDS offshoot that is deviating from LDS normative theology. OTH, if the offshoot is actually doing what the LDS "prophet" both taught and lived as an example, then there is a place for a debate on the matter.

That there ARE offshoots of biblical Christianity is no argument against biblical Christianity. The claims, scriptures, and other official representation of any religion can only be rightly evaluated on their own terms. Claiming for example that biblical Christianity is FALSE because the Westboro "Baptist" church carries signs that that announce "God Hates ***s" or that God is pleased to see dead U.S. soldiers is really just a red herring. The claims of Christianity do NOT include that God hates ***s, nor is there evidence in the claims of Christ or the Bible that God loves to see U.S. servicemen killed. That is the message of the Westboro Baptist church, not the Bible.

Similarly, if some wild hair offshoot of the LDS somewhere in the dessert starts killing and eating small children, it would be wrong to blame the LDS for that behavior.

But the problem you guys face is that your founding "prophet" both taught and clearly lived out the example of marrying adolescent girls and the wives of other men and he attributed his practices and teachings to God himself. While this is not currently "official doctrine" of the LDS it absolutely was the official doctrine of your founding prophet who blamed it on God. That makes Joseph Smith a FALSE prophet even when compared to your own (LDS) current doctrine.

-BH

.


Here we go again with Brian making accusations that he cannot give a source for. Brian please provide us all with the civil marriage
licenses? As you fail to note or even cite properly is that we are talking about sealing not civil marriages. Interesting.

r.

[BrianH]

Oh C'mawn Richard... You KNOW that Smith never got "civil marriage licenses" for his 30+ wives because polygamy is and was ILLEGAL. There is no way he could have gotten them so your lame little retort is, as usual, easily exposed as just another example of a Mormon using a logical fallacy to obscure the issue (specifically the argument from silence fallacy). That fails to obscure the FACT that Smith took several wives for himself including ****scent girls and other men's wives.

What was your "prophet" doing marrying other men's wives, Rich? Do you deny this?

Please deny this, cuz I am prepared to humiliate you again under a mountain of evidence for you to then just deny.

-BH

.

[Snow Patrol]

It is inappropriate, or at least inaccurate to hold LDS accountable for the teachings of some LDS offshoot that is deviating from LDS normative theology. OTH, if the offshoot is actually doing what the LDS "prophet" both taught and lived as an example, then there is a place for a debate on the matter.

That there ARE offshoots of biblical Christianity is no argument against biblical Christianity. The claims, scriptures, and other official representation of any religion can only be rightly evaluated on their own terms. Claiming for example that biblical Christianity is FALSE because the Westboro "Baptist" church carries signs that that announce "God Hates ***s" or that God is pleased to see dead U.S. soldiers is really just a red herring. The claims of Christianity do NOT include that God hates ***s, nor is there evidence in the claims of Christ or the Bible that God loves to see U.S. servicemen killed. That is the message of the Westboro Baptist church, not the Bible.

Similarly, if some wild hair offshoot of the LDS somewhere in the dessert starts killing and eating small children, it would be wrong to blame the LDS for that behavior.

But the problem you guys face is that your founding "prophet" both taught and clearly lived out the example of marrying adolescent girls and the wives of other men and he attributed his practices and teachings to God himself. While this is not currently "official doctrine" of the LDS it absolutely was the official doctrine of your founding prophet who blamed it on God. That makes Joseph Smith a FALSE prophet even when compared to your own (LDS) current doctrine.


So how is the context of what you described relevant to posting a picture of a bed in their temple?

[BrianH]

Sorry uh ...it doesn't. I was not commenting on that.

-HB

.

[Richard]

Oh C'mawn Richard... You KNOW that Smith never got "civil marriage licenses" for his 30+ wives because polygamy is and was ILLEGAL. There is no way he could have gotten them so your lame little retort is, as usual, easily exposed as just another example of a Mormon using a logical fallacy to obscure the issue (specifically the argument from silence fallacy). That fails to obscure the FACT that Smith took several wives for himself including ****scent girls and other men's wives.

What was your "prophet" doing marrying other men's wives, Rich? Do you deny this?

Please deny this, cuz I am prepared to humiliate you again under a mountain of evidence for you to then just deny.

-BH

.


I know this will be near impossible for you good buddy, but for once could you please site your source if you have one. Yes, Joseph had other mens wives sealed to him, so what? they never slept with him, that is if, "if", you can produce some creditable evidence to show otherwise. Please provide evidence that Joseph slept with any of the women who were, SEALED, to him. Also good buddy, how could a man have had 30 some wives and not have produced any children? They did not have the pill in those days friend.

I am eager to see your deflection when you try to rebut this piece of amateur ham work you consider still relevant. Must I remind you what Mossier and Owns said about old sensationalized criticisms, and false accusations.

Put up or s--- up Brian.

Richard.

[BrianH]

I know this will be near impossible for you good buddy, but for once could you please site your source if you have one. Yes, Joseph had other mens wives sealed to him, so what?

First of all since you admit my claim, what purpose is there in me going and digging out my sources. Secondly, look what you just said: "Joseph had other mens wives sealed to him, so what?" ...of course "sealed" is just a euphemism for marriage.

"So what"?

You say "So what"???

Richard, your so-called "prophet" MARRIED other men's wives. Are you so blind to evil and to sin that I have to spell out the "so what" to you?

Why would any man let his wife be married to another man is a great mystery. Would you let your wife be sealed to Thomas Monosn? Who's wife will she be in the hereafter, Rich? With whom will she be copulating to produce a planet full of spirit children to worship you as their God, Monson or you?

-BH

.

[John T]

I know this will be near impossible for you good buddy, but for once could you please site your source if you have one. Yes, Joseph had other mens (sic) wives sealed to him, so what?

You acknowledge that fact. Why does he need to find sources, for they are COMMON KNOWLEDGE




they never slept with him, that is if, "if", you can produce some creditable evidence to show otherwise.

Logically, it is impossible to prove a negative, so your accusation is moot.
Second, the accusation is contrary to the normal bounds of marriage.
Third, lacking any evidence to the contrary, it is most probable that Smith did have relations with all 30 of his women.


Please provide evidence that Joseph slept with any of the women who were, SEALED, to him. Also good buddy, how could a man have had 30 some wives and not have produced any children? They did not have the pill in those days friend.

What you state is not supported by evidence. I googled "children of Joseph Smith" and found this (partial snip)


Historians have previously identified eight possible children of Joseph Smith borne by his plural wives. As of November 2007, DNA testing has shown that three of these eight children were not fathered by Joseph Smith.

Two other children died as infants and therefore left no posterity. DNA testing is underway or remains a possiblity for the the remaining three. They are listed below, along with the traditionally recognized mother and father:

DNA TESTING COMPLETE: (JS IS the father of these)

Moroni Pratt (Birth: December 7, 1844)
Mother: Mary Ann Frost
Father: Parley P. Pratt (confirmed via DNA research - May 2005) (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600137517,00.html)

Zebulon Jacobs (Birth: January 2, 1842)
Mother: Zina Huntington Jacobs (http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/05-ZinaHuntingtonJacobs.htm)
Father: Henry Jacobs (confirmed via DNA research – May 2005) (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600137517,00.html)

Oliver Buell (Birth: 1838 – 39)
Mother: Presendia Huntington Buell (http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/06-PresendiaHuntingtonBuell.htm)
Father: Norman Buell (confirmed via DNA research – November 2007) (http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html)




I am eager to see your deflection when you try to rebut this piece of amateur ham work you consider still relevant. Must I remind you what Mossier and Owns said about old sensationalized criticisms, and false accusations.
No one needs to rebut non-given evidence. You failed to produce anything. OTOH I did a cursory web search, and found that stuff right off.

In doing that, I have created your work for you; I provided an example that runs contrary to what you ***ert. Your *** is to demonstrate exactly WHY the DNA testing of those three children is flawed, and then provide evidence that states that JS did NOT commit adultery with these stolen wives from other men.

You know today that is an alternative life style, just like today; they call it "swinging" now.

[Richard]

You acknowledge that fact. Why does he need to find sources, for they are COMMON KNOWLEDGE

Logically, it is impossible to prove a negative, so your accusation is moot.
Second, the accusation is contrary to the normal bounds of marriage.
Third, lacking any evidence to the contrary, it is most probable that Smith did have relations with all 30 of his women.

[COLOR="Green"]Who's common knowledge friend. I asked for a source of his accusations of, "polygamy is and was ILLEGAL", and "cuz I am prepared to humiliate you again under a mountain of evidence for you to then just deny. So John, what is wrong with asking for some source materials that Joseph ever married anyone of these women, and had sexual relations with any one of them. Do you know the difference between a civil marriage and a sealing? Can you provide me with at least one civil marriage? Can you show any children that is proven by DNA. If not, what do you claim that can be proven with hard evidence? I predicted that Brian would deflect, that is his standard MO.




What you state is not supported by evidence. I googled "children of Joseph Smith" and found this (partial snip)
[INDENT]Historians have previously identified eight possible children of Joseph Smith borne by his plural wives. As of November 2007, DNA testing has shown that three of these eight children were not fathered by Joseph Smith.
Two other children died as infants and therefore left no posterity. DNA testing is underway or remains a possibility for the the remaining three. They are listed below, along with the traditionally recognized mother and father:

DNA TESTING COMPLETE: (JS IS the father of these)


Oliver Buell (Birth: 1838 – 39)
Mother: Presendia Huntington Buell (http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/06-PresendiaHuntingtonBuell.htm)
Father: Norman Buell (confirmed via DNA research – November 2007) (http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html)


Evidence??? Olive Buell --- DNA testing has definitively ruled out Joseph as Oliver's father. You must have dated information, that's what you get from, "quickie", googling. :D

[
B]Moroni[/B] Pratt (Birth: December 7, 1844)
Mother: Mary Ann Frost
Father: Parley P. Pratt (confirmed via DNA research - May 2005) (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600137517,00.html)

Zebulon Jacobs (Birth: January 2, 1842)
Mother: Zina Huntington Jacobs (http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/05-ZinaHuntingtonJacobs.htm)
Father: Henry Jacobs (confirmed via DNA research – May 2005) (http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600137517,00.html)


Also DNA testing has ruled out three other alleged male descendants — Moroni Llewellyn Pratt (son of Mary Ann Frost Pratt, married to Parley P. Pratt), Zebulon Jacobs (son of Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs Smith, married to Henry Bailey Jacobs) and Orrison Smith (son of Fanny Alger).

Your batting zero, and making your self look pretty foolish. So out of those we have data for, there is no evidence from DNA at this point that Joseph Smith had any children from women other than Emma Smith.




No one needs to rebut non-given evidence. You failed to produce anything. OTOH I did a cursory web search, and found that stuff right off.

Good for you, so please review with me what you have as hard evidence, please do that as I'm waiting anxiously for your further research and would appreciate sources and names of Historians your quoting from.



In doing that, I have created your work for you; I provided an example that runs contrary to what you ***ert. Your *** is to demonstrate exactly WHY the DNA testing of those three children is flawed, and then provide evidence that states that JS did NOT commit adultery with these stolen wives from other men.
You know today that is an alternative life style, just like today; they call it "swinging" now.

So exactly what did you prove, I see only some old accusations, that have been already proven to be contrary to you lame example. Did you prove anywhere that Joseph had sexual relations with any of the wives of other men he was sealed to. Interesting. Please get back to me, since Brian has coped out as usual.

R.

[Richard]

[QUOTE=BrianH;13043]First of all since you admit my claim, what purpose is there in me going and digging out my sources. Secondly, look what you just said: "Joseph had other mens wives sealed to him, so what?" ...of course "sealed" is just a euphemism for marriage.

"So what"?

You say "So what"???

Richard, your so-called "prophet" MARRIED other men's wives. Are you so blind to evil and to sin that I have to spell out the "so what" to you?

I know that historians show that Joseph was sealed to them, but they still remained married to their husbands, so what? :confused:


Why would any man let his wife be married to another man is a great mystery. Would you let your wife be sealed to Thomas Monosn? Who's wife will she be in the hereafter, Rich? With whom will she be copulating to produce a planet full of spirit children to worship you as their God, Monson or you?

-BH

I wouldn't since I have been married in the Temple and sealed to my wife for eternity, so my friend you see, which you apparently don't see, is that under the laws of Heaven, only a man and women sealed by God can have eternal life, where as you my friend and if you are married, are joined together only until death.





Nice deflection though.

[Dante]

What you state is not supported by evidence. I googled "children of Joseph Smith" and found this (partial snip)

Am I missing something or did you seriously just make bold faced accusations in regard to this and then provide links to articles that absolutely refute it?

Did you even bother reading those articles?

From the article: (confirmed via DNA research – November 2007) (http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html)
"For 160 years people have been writing in books or speculating that these people could have been Joseph Smith's children. When people write something in a book, many people refer to that almost as a fact. Brodie went on and on about Buell, talking about the timing and the picture — everything seems to indicate Buell was Joseph Smith's son. But the DNA says otherwise."

AND:
"The list of approximately 12 people alleged to have been Smith's children "may grow over time," Perego said, noting historical documents continue to surface. "I'm not saying the list I have is definitive or complete at all. But out of those we have data for, there is no evidence from DNA at this point that Joseph Smith had any children from women other than Emma Smith."

[BrianH]

I know that historians show that Joseph was sealed to them, but they still remained married to their husbands, so what?

You are making a distinction between "sealed" and "married".

Cute trick, but you know its fake. And you know that I know that its fake.

So ....why bother with the trick? It makes you look silly.


I wouldn't since I have been married in the Temple and sealed to my wife for eternity, so my friend you see, which you apparently don't see, is that under the laws of Heaven, only a man and women sealed by God can have eternal life, where as you my friend and if you are married, are joined together only until death.

Interesting Freudian slip there Richard. Read what you just wrote out loud, slowly to yourself. So then these women are to abandon their husbands in heaven and cling to Smith, right?

Who made this stuff up, Rich?


Nice deflection though


Says the guy who almost NEVER answers any questions.

I suggest you learn what the word "deflection" means; I am directly attacking your claims, Rich.

-BH

.

[Richard]

You are making a distinction between "sealed" and "married".

Cute trick, but you know its fake. And you know that I know that its fake.

So ....why bother with the trick? It makes you look silly.


[QUOTE]Huge difference between sealed and married in a civil marriage, apparently God only recognizes sealed for eternity marriages performed by one holding the keys of the Priesthood to perform such marriages. Silly is you trying to provide any kind of marriage certificate showing it was anything other then a sealing. Interesting deflection as you sort through you anti- book cursing the fact that you can't find any information that Joseph was married to any of these women. Nor can you find that the relationship was consummated in the traditional way. I keep telling you to throw away those old antiquated anti-books and move on, you know, they make you look kind of silly.




Interesting Freudian slip there Richard. Read what you just wrote out loud, slowly to yourself. So then these women are to abandon their husbands in heaven and cling to Smith, right?
Who made this stuff up, Rich? Says the guy who almost NEVER answers any questions.

I suggest you learn what the word "deflection" means; I am directly attacking your claims, Rich.

-BH

Really, maybe you should re-read my answer. Since I have married and been sealed with my wife for time and eternity, there would be no reason to ask Pres. Monson to be sealed to her.


Sexual Relations and Polyandry

The above table shows that about one-fourth of Joseph's wives were married women, which Mormon historians have characterized as "polyandry" in a general sense. In Sacred Loneliness, however, uses the term specifically for a woman's marriage to more than one husband, with full physical intimacy. This is also the connotation of the standard definition: "having more than one husband or male mate at one time." In these cases, we simply know that an eternal marriage to Joseph was performed with the continuation of the temporal marriage to an existing husband. By 1846, most of these husbands accepted the eternal sealing to the Prophet. Compton overinterprets the phrase time and eternity, which some married women said was used in their sealings to Joseph Smith. The sealings established an eternal relationship with the Prophet from that point, but time did not necessarily imply present marital relations with two men. A verbal argument to that effect lacks substance. Polyandry should indicate a category of Joseph's sealings to some married women, without implying simultaneous sexual partners.

The published revelation on plural marriage records that certain women "have been given unto my servant Joseph" (D&C 132:52). After some chapters, readers may wonder, "Did God inspire or lead Joseph to be sealed to women who were already married?" The most direct response is "Yes." As believing Latter-day Saints and research historians, we interpret Joseph Smith's involvement with the introduction of plural (celestial) marriage as being firmly grounded in both moral and inspired eternal principles. This conclusion is based on a consistent picture in early documents, including the faithful lives and personal revelations of the first participants, and their remarkable perseverance in overcoming obstacles to accepting and living this celestial principle of marriage.

Compton does not specify or quantify or document his generalized conclusion that "in a significant number" of these plural marriages Joseph Smith had sexual contact with his partner. If by "significant" Compton implies that a majority of these marriages had what he terms the "sexual dimension," his statement is not supported by the data he presents. This is an example of many questionable conclusions in this book that are overly broad, nonspecific, or undocumented.

[Richard]

[QUOTE=Dante;13056]Am I missing something or did you seriously just make bold faced accusations in regard to this and then provide links to articles that absolutely refute it?

Did you even bother reading those articles?

Thank you Dante, as we clearly see, the non-mormons, (critics), have again and again dug up old antiquated and sensationalized materials that when trotted out, only provide stale, unreliable and unsubstantiated claims. We have learned from both Brian and John, their work and research is disturbed by its dissonances. Lack of agreement is consistent with the whom, how and why of their source materials, which we have show time and time is out of harmony with historical facts or lack of facts and evidence which conflict with their lame claims.

Richard.

[BrianH]

Huge difference between sealed and married in a civil marriage, apparently God only recognizes sealed for eternity marriages performed by one holding the keys of the Priesthood to perform such marriages.


Show me where God makes this distinction, Rich. Until you do, it is obvious that this is nothing but another doctrine that Joseph Smith developed to cover his own personal sins (in this case polygamy) with the false rubric of another fake revelation. You have been SO duped.

I dare you to even TRY to show me biblical support for this lame, artificial and obviously self-serving distinction between "sealing" and "marriage". If you even bother to try to live up to your responsibility to meet that challenge, you will quickly discover that once again, as usual, you have swallowed the whole thing: hook, line, single, pole, fisherman and boat without even bothering to see if it is in any way scriptural. You have believed it because Joseph Smith said it (again ...to cover his **** after his polygamy was exposed), and your church TELLS you to "believe it".

-BH

.

[Richard]

Show me where God makes this distinction, Rich. Until you do, it is obvious that this is nothing but another doctrine that Joseph Smith developed to cover his own personal sins (in this case polygamy) with the false rubric of another fake revelation. You have been SO duped.

Duped? what the heck you talking about, the accusation you made was, "for his 30+ wives because polygamy is and was ILLEGAL. and then you followed up with, "FACT that Smith took several wives for himself including ****scent girls and other men's wives. This is part of Doctrine you never apparently read, so you carelessly made two mistakes, one is that Polygamy was illegal, and the other is you cannot produce marriage certificates of a civil marriage. Interesting. Then you do not understand Polyandry as God quiet plainly explains in the verse I quoted to you. By 1846, most of these husbands accepted the eternal sealing to the Prophet. Compton overinterprets the phrase time and eternity, which some married women said was used in their sealing to Joseph Smith. The sealing established an eternal relationship with the Prophet from that point, but time did not necessarily imply present marital relations with two men. A verbal argument to that effect lacks substance. Polyandry should indicate a category of Joseph's to some married women, without implying simultaneous sexual partners.

The published revelation on plural marriage records that certain women "have been given unto my servant Joseph" (D&C 132:52).



I dare you to even TRY to show me biblical support for this lame, artificial and obviously self-serving distinction between "sealing" and "marriage". If you even bother to try to live up to your responsibility to meet that challenge, you will quickly discover that once again, as usual, you have swallowed the whole thing: hook, line, single, pole, fisherman and boat without even bothering to see if it is in any way scriptural. You have believed it because Joseph Smith said it (again ...to cover his **** after his polygamy was exposed), and your church TELLS you to "believe it".

-BH

You can dare all you want Brian, but the challenge is for you to prove that Polygamy was illegal, and that these marriages where anything other then a sealing. You are limited to what your poor sources speculate, you cannot provide any evidence of sexual relations, children from these sealing, etc, etc.

So big mouth, do the following as you so clearly stated, "Please deny this, cuz I am prepared to humiliate you again under a mountain of evidence for you to then just deny".

Thanks partner, and good luck.

R.

[BrianH]

Duped? what the heck you talking about, the accusation you made was, "for his 30+ wives because polygamy is and was ILLEGAL. and then you followed up with, "FACT that Smith took several wives for himself including ****scent girls and other men's wives. This is part of Doctrine you never apparently read, so you carelessly made two mistakes, one is that Polygamy was illegal, and the other is you cannot produce marriage certificates of a civil marriage.

Wrong Rich ...the simple FACT is, Smith did not get a marriage certificate is because it was illegal for him to be married to other men's wives, not because it was part of doctrine that "I never read", nor anyone else ever read. In fact it is not part of any "doctrine" outside the doctrines of the Mormon imagination. Secondly, MANY people have marriage certificates resulting from civil marriages. So as usual, you are either ignorant or lying.


Then you do not understand Polyandry as God quiet plainly explains in the verse I quoted to you.

You never quoted me anything other than the product of the Mormon imagination. What these OTHER dupes and victims of Smith's deceptions fell for is immaterial. The FACT is they let their wives be married (or sealed) to another man for eternity - at least in their imaginations. That they did such a thing only shows the depth of their deception and their gullibility.


The published revelation on plural marriage records that certain women "have been given unto my servant Joseph" (D&C 132:52).

..which was WRITTEN BY JOSEPH SMITH in an obvious effort to rationalize his own polygamous indulgences ...its AMAZING how anyone could actually be so duped by this stuff. You have been played like a card, pal.


You can dare all you want Brian, but the challenge is for you to prove that Polygamy was illegal, and that these marriages where anything other then a sealing. You are limited to what your poor sources speculate, you cannot provide any evidence of sexual relations, children from these sealing, etc, etc.

Yes I can dare and, as usual, the Mormon will not meet the challenge I place before him so he is forced to try to obscure his lack of response to that challenge by issuing his own counter-challenge. Obviously there is no biblical support for your "doctrine" so, you are forced by your pathetic little ego problem to hide like a wounded kitten and lash out with your own nonsense to try to hide your embarr***ment.

I can only wonder if you have somehow managed to fool yourself, or if you somehow think that your stupid tactics have in any way fooled anyone else (except other Mormons, that is - but then again, apparently Mormons are EASILY fooled.)

Yes, Rich you have been duped; polygamy was illegal. In fact, just to clue you in and bring your woefully inadequate education up to speed, the simple FACT is that the statehood of Utah hinged on your church DROPPING this doctrine in order to conform to the law of the nation the people of Utah was trying to join. Suddenly (and conveniently) the Mormon "God" changed his mind and Mormons did away with polygamy.

It seems you are not only ignorant of the basics here, but your God is apparently willing to alter his own laws to accommodate the dictates of men.


So big mouth, do the following as you so clearly stated, "Please deny this, cuz I am prepared to humiliate you again under a mountain of evidence for you to then just deny".

So then you deny that Smith invented the Mormon doctrine of polygamy, right?

-BH

.

[John T]

Am I missing something or did you seriously just make bold faced accusations in regard to this and then provide links to articles that absolutely refute it?

Did you even bother reading those articles?

From the article: (confirmed via DNA research – November 2007) (http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695226318,00.html)
"For 160 years people have been writing in books or speculating that these people could have been Joseph Smith's children. When people write something in a book, many people refer to that almost as a fact. Brodie went on and on about Buell, talking about the timing and the picture — everything seems to indicate Buell was Joseph Smith's son. But the DNA says otherwise."

AND:
"The list of approximately 12 people alleged to have been Smith's children "may grow over time," Perego said, noting historical documents continue to surface. "I'm not saying the list I have is definitive or complete at all. But out of those we have data for, there is no evidence from DNA at this point that Joseph Smith had any children from women other than Emma Smith."


Historians have previously identified eight possible children of Joseph Smith borne by his plural wives. As of November 2007, DNA testing has shown that [ONLY] three of these eight children were not fathered by Joseph Smith. Two other children died as infants and therefore left no posterity. DNA testing is underway or remains a possiblity for the the remaining three. They are listed below, along with the traditionally recognized mother and father:

[Dante]

"... there is no evidence from DNA at this point that Joseph Smith had any children from women other than Emma Smith."

[Richard]

Wrong Rich ...the simple FACT is, Smith did not get a marriage certificate is because it was illegal for him to be married to other men's wives, not because it was part of doctrine that "I never read", nor anyone else ever read. In fact it is not part of any "doctrine" outside the doctrines of the Mormon imagination. Secondly, MANY people have marriage certificates resulting from civil marriages. So as usual, you are either ignorant or lying.

Get a life and join the world of the what, how and why of Polyandry as given unto Joseph, which was in no way the Polyandry you might want your little anti-book to be believed. Which to say, no other then a dunce such as the gullible Brian, who has never researched any thing in his life, including reading the Book of Mormon. If you can provide a marriage certificate, license or witnesses of a civil marriage, then guess what Brian, you may have a case if then you can prove sexual relations. Since you only have a religious sealing, the Law could care less, so the proof is still your problem, if you want to be considered credible, prove what you claim.

[QUOTE]You never quoted me anything other than the product of the Mormon imagination. What these OTHER dupes and victims of Smith's deceptions fell for is immaterial. The FACT is they let their wives be married (or sealed) to another man for eternity - at least in their imaginations. That they did such a thing only shows the depth of their deception and their gullibility.


What I quoted you was a spiritual law, not the law of the land, which you seem to have problems separating. Sealing in no way could be considered polyandry, if you want to state otherwise then you risk accusing Joseph of a crime that never even existed. All of these wives continued to remain married to their husbands, and continued to live with them. For whatever reason they allowed their wives to be sealed for eternity is not clear, but the fact that we only have sketchy history and nothing other then that these sealing took place, we still have nothing indicating a immoral relationship, so what is the big deal partner.

R. :D

[Richard]

Historians have previously identified eight possible children of Joseph Smith borne by his plural wives. As of November 2007, DNA testing has shown that [ONLY] three of these eight children were not fathered by Joseph Smith. Two other children died as infants and therefore left no posterity. DNA testing is underway or remains a possiblity for the the remaining three. They are listed below, along with the traditionally recognized mother and father:

Oh, the stupid things we believe when we refuse to look at cold facts.

We clearly see, the non-mormons, (critics), have again and again dug up old antiquated and sensationalized materials that when trotted out, only provide stale, unreliable and unsubstantiated claims. We have learned from both Brian and John, their work and research is disturbed by its dissonances. Lack of agreement is consistent with the whom, how and why of their source materials, which we have show time and time is out of harmony with historical facts or lack of facts and evidence which conflict with their lame claims.

[John T]

We clearly see, the non-mormons, (critics), have again and again dug up old antiquated and sensationalized materials...

LOL Since when is 2007 "antiquated"?

[BrianH]

And even if it WAS 'antiquated', what Rich does not seem to be able to grasp is that just because information is OLD does not mean it is INCORRECT. By Rich's standards, the BoM is necessarily FALSE because its content is almost 200 years old. (That's 200 times older than what you posted John).

-BH

.

[BrianH]

Get a life and join the world of the what, how and why of Polyandry as given unto Joseph, which was in no way the Polyandry you might want your little anti-book to be believed.

Wake up and realize that neither YOU nor yoru boy Joseph Smith have the authority to invent the laws of polygamy and polyandry to suit your selves.


What I quoted you was a spiritual law, not the law of the land...
Nonsense. What you quoted was Joseph Smith's invention as a means to cover his **** after his polygamy was exposed. The law of the land (the US) held polygamy as illegal. Your lame attempt to equivocate "sealing" as irrelevant to marriage is an AMZING display of the kind of mental anguish that Mormons must impose on themselves.

-BH

[Richard]

LOL Since when is 2007 "antiquated"?

Very good John, so how is it going with the DNA? So far good buddy zippo results showing any children. My, my, friend, 30 some supposed marriages, and no children, amazing. No Birth control pills and zippo kids to show for it.
Yea, you got a whole bunch of evidence.

Oh, the stupid things we believe when we refuse to look at cold facts.

[Richard]

Wake up and realize that neither YOU nor yoru boy Joseph Smith have the authority to invent the laws of polygamy and polyandry to suit your selves.

Invent what laws slicko? Joseph never committed polyandry. I could start a new organization tomorrow and claim that a sealing to other mens wives was a religious rite, and not be in any harms way with the law, as long as it was not a legal civil marriage.


Nonsense. What you quoted was Joseph Smith's invention as a means to cover his **** after his polygamy was exposed. The law of the land (the US) held polygamy as illegal. Your lame attempt to equivocate "sealing" as irrelevant to marriage is an AMZING display of the kind of mental anguish that Mormons must impose on themselves.

-BH

Invention? where did you glean that from? If I remember right, it was years after that the law was p***ed on polygamy. In 1862, Congress issued the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act which clarified that the practice of polygamy was illegal in all U.S. territories. Was it illegal in Illinois, yes. What you have failed to prove is the marriage itself, were these marriages consummated with the first act of sexual intercourse after the ceremony, or were these marriages eternal and celestial marriages? Since you can not provide any historical documents to prove evidence one way or the other, you can only speculate.

R.

[BrianH]

Invent what laws slicko?

The laws governing marriage


Joseph never committed polyandry.

No ...he just married other men's wives.


What you have failed to prove is the marriage itself, were these marriages consummated with the first act of sexual intercourse after the ceremony, or were these marriages eternal and celestial marriages?
Why does that alleged distinction between two types of 'marriages' somehow amount to a distinction between 'marriage' and the NON-marriage which you want us to think is what Smith did. And why would these women not want to be "sealed" to their own Mormon-God husbands? Why was Smith out taking all those women for HIMSELF? No matter how you try to obscure it, Rich - your "prophet" was a punk.


Invention? where did you glean that from?
From the FACT that 100% of all of this nonsense comes from Joseph Smith HIMSELF. I challenge you to show me any distinctions between marriage and marriage-called-"sealings" anywhere outside the rhetoric of Smith and his followers.

Face it, Rich. Your boy Smith was just makin' stuff up to suit his own fancy.

-BH

.

[Richard]

Quote:
Invent what laws slicko?
The laws governing marriage

Oh, thats right, mans laws.



Joseph never committed polyandry.
No ...he just married other men's wives.

Show me the evidence partner, were they sealings or marriages? interesting that you fail to ever provide any evidence to back up you claims. Gosh, darn, it must be frustrating to find that your little anti books are so limited in helping you as you furiously flip the pages, cussing that you just can't find any evidence.


Quote:
What you have failed to prove is the marriage itself, were these marriages consummated with the first act of sexual intercourse after the ceremony, or were these marriages eternal and celestial marriages?
Why does that alleged distinction between two types of 'marriages' somehow amount to a distinction between 'marriage' and the NON-marriage which you want us to think is what Smith did. And why would these women not want to be "sealed" to their own Mormon-God husbands? Why was Smith out taking all those women for HIMSELF? No matter how you try to obscure it, Rich - your "prophet" was a punk.

Well good buddy, where are all the children that would make your point valid. Interesting that this continues to be a huge stumbling block, and yet you continue to believe that Joseph could be that well practiced, and with out any Birth control pills, to never have slipped up even once, as we so far have no evidence of DNA proof. I tend to believe that sealings are not what most intelligent people would consider a civil marriage, but again I can't get in your closed mind.


Quote:
Invention? where did you glean that from?
From the FACT that 100% of all of this nonsense comes from Joseph Smith HIMSELF. I challenge you to show me any distinctions between marriage and marriage-called-"sealings" anywhere outside the rhetoric of Smith and his followers.

Face it, Rich. Your boy Smith was just makin' stuff up to suit his own fancy.

-BH

No Brian, the challenge is back at you, you made the claim of marrying other mens wives, so with that definition good buddy, would that not mean sexual relations also. Would that not entail adultery?
Would that not most likely mean children. Speculation is a wonderful way to claim something you cannot prove. Speculation Brian, is your forte. Frustrating I imagine.

R.

[BrianH]

Oh, thats right, mans laws.

which is what I refrred to when I said that Smith's multiple marriages were against "THE" "LAW" "OF" "THE LAND", genius.


Show me the evidence partner, were they sealings or marriages? interesting that you fail to ever provide any evidence to back up you claims. Gosh, darn, it must be frustrating to find that your little anti books are so limited in helping you as you furiously flip the pages, cussing that you just can't find any evidence.

Again you pretend to draw a distinction between "marriage" and "sealing". The sources for Smith's many marriages are published (much to the discomfort of the LDS) in many books and all over the internet. Those reports are drawn from first-hand accounts of the participants and witnesses to Smith's many marriages.


Well good buddy, where are all the children that would make your point valid.
Logical fallacy: Argument from silence. First of all, there need not be children resulting from every marriage. Secondly, there are those who SELF-proclaim as being children of your "prophet", as well as DNA research that has allowed for at least a few such children - though you will predictably just beg more questions regarding them, so what's the point?


No Brian, the challenge is back at you, you made the claim of marrying other mens wives, so with that definition good buddy, would that not mean sexual relations also.



"The only men who become Gods, even the sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy" (Journal of Discourses 11:269)

Whom shall we believe ...YOU or LDS "prophet" Brigham Young?

-BH

.

[John T]

Very good John, so how is it going with the DNA? So far good buddy zippo results showing any children. My, my, friend, 30 some supposed marriages, and no children, amazing. No Birth control pills and zippo kids to show for it.
Yea, you got a whole bunch of evidence.


Yes, I accounted for merely five DNA proofs (provided by LAB RESULTS in the ancient year of 2007).

What Richard fails to see is the proved presence of just one child of Joseph Smith's "love children", (and there are five times that) is proof of the almost certain probability of being more. That is elementary logic, and elementary reasoning.

By Richard's resorting to a hypothetical distinction between "sealing" and "marriage", he demonstrates the futile nature of his argument. He would need to demonstrate just one proof where a bride was "sealed", but not "married" and if perchance if that distinction holds, he deeds to provide proof that the "sealed" bride did not experience the consummation of that sealing, but was never married.

Another hurdle for Richard to overcome in his distinction without a difference is that he needs to demonstrate that the priest really did not mean it in the ceremony, and that the sealings were therefore, by definition bogus. For example, the “sealer” pronounces a fixed set of ceremonial words. Instead of ending with “till death do you part,” the ceremony ends with “for time and all eternity.”

SEALING=MARRIAGE it is that simple, Richard

Richard's false distinction is born out in this clip from the Mormon Encyclopedia
The sealing together of husband, wife, and children in eternal family units is the culminating ordinance of the priesthood, to which all others are preparatory. It must be performed by one holding the sealing power and today in an LDS temple dedicated to GodFrom the above, it is obvious that either Richard does not understand Mormonism, as he purports to do or that he is deliberately trying to mislead people here; you know: prevaricate.

ARE YOUR PANTS ON FIRE, RICHARD?????

[Richard]

Yes, I accounted for merely five DNA proofs (provided by LAB RESULTS in the ancient year of 2007).

What Richard fails to see is the proved presence of just one child of Joseph Smith's "love children", (and there are five times that) is proof of the almost certain probability of being more. That is elementary logic, and elementary reasoning.


[QUOTE]John states, "Historians have previously identified eight possible children of Joseph Smith borne by his plural wives. As of November 2007, DNA testing has shown that [ONLY] three of these eight children were not fathered by Joseph Smith. Two other children died as infants and therefore left no posterity. DNA testing is underway or remains a possibility for the the remaining three. They are listed below, along with the traditionally recognized mother and father"

Elementary Logic, and Elementary Reasoning.

Eight Possible,
Remain a possibility
Certain probability

Need I say anymore :D



By Richard's resorting to a hypothetical distinction between "sealing" and "marriage", he demonstrates the futile nature of his argument. He would need to demonstrate just one proof where a bride was "sealed", but not "married" and if perchance if that distinction holds, he deeds to provide proof that the "sealed" bride did not experience the consummation of that sealing, but was never married.

I love John's logic, it contains a lot of possible, possibilities, speculative reasoning.


Compton does not specify or quantify or document his generalized conclusion that "in a significant number" of these plural marriages Joseph Smith had sexual contact with his partner. If by "significant" Compton implies that a majority of these marriages had what he terms the "sexual dimension," his statement is not supported by the data he presents. This is an example of many questionable conclusions in this book that are overly broad, nonspecific, or undocumented.

So John turns the debate upside down, and makes it my responsibility to prove that the marriage was nothing more then a sealing. Interesting, I must now imagine that both John and Brian have sorted through all there talking points, anti- books, and favorite enemies of the Church and come up with zippo evidence.
But logic and elementary reasoning is now there proof, Interesting. I love Brian's statement, I quote, "Please deny this, cuz I am prepared to humiliate you again under a mountain of evidence for you to then just deny. So John and Brian, why the speculation, logic, and reasoning? where is the meat? Is the fact that, possible, possibilities, and specualtative reasoning is what your prepared to use to humiliate me? :D



Another hurdle for Richard to overcome in his distinction without a difference is that he needs to demonstrate that the priest really did not mean it in the ceremony, and that the sealings were therefore, by definition bogus. For example, the “sealer” pronounces a fixed set of ceremonial words. Instead of ending with “till death do you part,” the ceremony ends with “for time and all eternity.”

SEALING=MARRIAGE it is that simple, Richard


Not my hurdle good buddy, God's doctrine of eternal marriage. God apparently does not recognize earthly marriages as being forever. I understood it well enough to want a eternal mate, my wife.
Prevaricate? Show where i have straddled the fence in my defense of LDS Doctrine.



Richard's false distinction is born out in this clip from the Mormon Encyclopedia From the above, it is obvious that either Richard does not understand Mormonism, as he purports to do or that he is deliberately trying to mislead people here; you know: prevaricate.

ARE YOUR PANTS ON FIRE, RICHARD?????

John, it's not my problem that your many anti-books can't help you out, and it will now take some personal research on your part to go beyond what you use as simple talking points.

I leave you with words of wisdom from Mossier and Owens, two of your guys, ----


"Many of the authors promote criticisms that have long been refuted; some are sensationalistic while others are simply ridiculous. A number of these books claim to be "the definitive" book on the matter. That they make no attempt to interact with contemporary LDS scholarship is a stain upon the authors' integrity and causes one to wonder about their credibility."

[John T]

----

Do you EVER get tired of distortion?

[Richard]

Do you EVER get tired of distortion?

What is humorous John, is the feeble attempts at finding any hard evidence or facts to support anything you criticize us for. Most of the time we get snippets, sensationalism, and LDS Doctrine stated incorrectly. Where or where is your credibility. Brian claims the Book of Mormon is a Fairy-tail, and yet admits to never having read it. Interesting indeed, but not creditable.

You accuse me of distortion? you accuse me of Prevaricating? Show where i have straddled the fence in my defense of LDS Doctrine?

Regards, Richard.

[John T]

What is humorous John, is the feeble attempts at finding any hard evidence or facts to support anything you criticize us for. Most of the time we get snippets, sensationalism, and LDS Doctrine stated incorrectly. Where or where is your credibility. Brian claims the Book of Mormon is a Fairy-tail, and yet admits to never having read it. Interesting indeed, but not creditable.

You accuse me of distortion? you accuse me of Prevaricating? Show where i have straddled the fence in my defense of LDS Doctrine?

Regards, Richard.

No, Richard

It is you who are taking the illogical position, but I also should have explained better. I was speaking in statistical terms, therefore the phrase "near certain probibility" was taken out if the contest the phrase is designed to convey. In numbers, the phrase means >99.99% of happening. In other words, the possibility if a negative is extremely small.

With that in mind, AND given the proved ancestry of at least one bona fide love child of JS, there is an extremely likely chance that there are other children he sired, including others not examined via DNA.

And I do not need to read the BoM to know that it is a fairy tale; all I have to do is take a short trip to Palmyra and see nothing in the Visitors Center or on the hill.

OTOH if you believe the BoM is true, show me some coreloms, neas, sheums, elephants or comoms, all of which were useful... :D

[Richard]

No, Richard

It is you who are taking the illogical position, but I also should have explained better. I was speaking in statistical terms, therefore the phrase "near certain probibility" was taken out if the contest the phrase is designed to convey. In numbers, the phrase means >99.99% of happening. In other words, the possibility if a negative is extremely small.

With that in mind, AND given the proved ancestry of at least one bona fide love child of JS, there is an extremely likely chance that there are other children he sired, including others not examined via DNA.

And I do not need to read the BoM to know that it is a fairy tale; all I have to do is take a short trip to Palmyra and see nothing in the Visitors Center or on the hill.

OTOH if you believe the BoM is true, show me some coreloms, neas, sheums, elephants or comoms, all of which were useful... :D


Interesting good buddy that the possibilities of 30 some ***umed marriages, now narrows down to only a possibility of some children that we are waiting the DNA evidence on. Five of twelve children that Joseph Smith, Jr. allegedly fathered by plural wives have been proven by DNA not to be his children.


"Although it has been alleged that Joseph Smith may have had children by his wives other than Emma (most historians believe he married at least thirty-three women, and probably as many as forty-eight) , DNA investigations in three cases have established that their biological father is in fact Smith's wives' other husbands. Additionally, the DNA research, so far, has failed to confirm Smith's paternity for any children other than those borne by his legal spouse, Emma." Perego, Ugo A.; Myers, Natalie M.; and Woodward, Scott R. (2005-05-29). "Reconstructing the Y-Chromosome of Joseph Smith Jr.: Genealogical Applications

Perego showed part of a list of alleged children of Joseph Smith through other wives. The DNA of a number of the alleged children was identified and compared:

Moroni Pratt was not his child, contrary to what Fawn Brodie speculated in her critical biography of Joseph Smith, "No Man Knows My History."

Zebulon Jacobs was not his child.

Oliver Norman Buell was claimed by Brodie to be a son of Joseph Smith. She had compared his photograph with Joseph Smith III. "Even the hairstyle was the same," Perego said, eliciting some laughter from the crowd. But notwithstanding the physical similarities, Buell was not Smith's child.

Mosiah L. Han**** was not his child either.

Using other DNA tests, Perego also hopes to determine whether Josephine Rosetta Lyon is a daughter of Joseph Smith. So far he has collected 120 DNA samples from her descendants. He says they should know in the "next year or so."

[Richard]

OTOH if you believe the BoM is true, show me some coreloms, neas, sheums, elephants or comoms, all of which were useful... :D

Since neither one of us can prove or disprove the above, it really becomes irrelevant friend. Frustrating isn't it? What will you say if someday the other records that the BOM was abridged from are discovered? My hunch is that you will still deny the facts and evidence, and move on to another talking point.

R. :D

[John T]

Since neither on of us can prove or disprove the above, it really becomes irrelevant friend. Frustrating isn't it? What will you say if someday the other records that the BOM was abridged from are discovered? My hunch is that you will still deny the facts and evidence, and move on to another talking point.

R. :D


You are the one who believes contrary to facts. Richard.

People like you believe that a "Maalox moment" aka "burning bosom" supersedes all reason and evidence to the contrary. That is akin to building theological castles in the air, for no castles float on air, and no one but the giant in Jack in the bean stalk can live there. And that is the essence of LDSism; at its heart it is irrational.

We can go to the Middle East and see cities mentioned in our Scripture, Mormons can't.

We can trace things via DNA, Mormons can't.

Christians can see ancient battlefields, and relics from them, Mormons can't.

Christians can see rivers mentioned in our Scripture Mormons can't

There are so much more things that are missing from your castle-in-the-air religion that to believe that it cons***utes credible truth is to make unfounded leap into the realm of the neurotic or delusional. As I learned with my dealings with the seriously mentally ill, "Delusions do not exist, so do not debate them."

In this case, I am not debating them as you seem to wish; instead, I am merely affirming their non-existence and let you live in those castles in the air that you create in Mormonism.

[Richard]

You are the one who believes contrary to facts. Richard.

People like you believe that a "Maalox moment" aka "burning bosom" supersedes all reason and evidence to the contrary. That is akin to building theological castles in the air, for no castles float on air, and no one but the giant in Jack in the bean stalk can live there. And that is the essence of LDSism; at its heart it is irrational.

We can go to the Middle East and see cities mentioned in our Scripture, Mormons can't.

We can trace things via DNA, Mormons can't.

Christians can see ancient battlefields, and relics from them, Mormons can't.

Christians can see rivers mentioned in our Scripture Mormons can't

There are so much more things that are missing from your castle-in-the-air religion that to believe that it cons***utes credible truth is to make unfounded leap into the realm of the neurotic or delusional. As I learned with my dealings with the seriously mentally ill, "Delusions do not exist, so do not debate them."

In this case, I am not debating them as you seem to wish; instead, I am merely affirming their non-existence and let you live in those castles in the air that you create in Mormonism.

You're absolutely correct John. Never heard of it as a Maalox moment, but humorous never the less. What I do agree with you on is that my personal testimony, given of the Holy Ghost, that Jesus is the Christ, does supersede all other evidence.

Cities in the Middle East mentioned in the Bible, ---- does not supersede my testimony that Jesus is the Christ.
Tracing DNA all you want ---- does not supersede my testimony that Jesus is the Christ.
Ancient Battlefields, and relics from them ---- does not supersede my testimony that Jesus is the Christ.
Rivers ---- does not supersede my testimony that Jesus is the Christ

My question to you, John, where do you get your testimony that Jesus is the Christ? I would rather gladly endure the burning bosom, then have to rely on relics left in the dirt of time. Just my opinion good buddy.

R. :)

[GraftedIn73]

... Yes, Joseph had other mens wives sealed to him, so what? they never slept with him, that is if, "if", you can produce some creditable evidence to show otherwise. Please provide evidence that Joseph slept with any of the women who were, SEALED, to him...

Hi Richard, Just a question... what would be the purpose of these women being sealed to Joseph Smith, rather than their own husbands?

GI73

[Richard]

But the problem you guys face is that your founding "prophet" both taught and clearly lived out the example of marrying adolescent girls and the wives of other men and he attributed his practices and teachings to God himself. While this is not currently "official doctrine" of the LDS it absolutely was the official doctrine of your founding prophet who blamed it on God. That makes Joseph Smith a FALSE prophet even when compared to your own (LDS) current doctrine.

-BH

Obviously Brian wants his readers to believe that plural marriages and ***ociated doctrines were little more than rationalizations for sexual immorality. Yet when asked to prove it, he wavers and deflects since there is little history that validates his lame criticism. He cannot prove adultery, can not show civil marriage versus Celestial unions, etc, etc. Frustration is setting in, and his flippant judgmental accusations are with out facts or evidence.

R.

[Russ]

Snow, those you call offshoots have much in common with LDSism. Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, polygamy, temples and temple rituals. It's difficult to examine the details of these secretive societies. (Well, LDSism isn't that hard to examine. Just Google "LDS temple rituals" and up comes a million hits.)

It's interesting to note that all Mormon sects point their fingers at other Mormon sects saying that all other Mormon sects aren't Mormon. Each one states they are the true Mormons. Each one knows that they are right.

Christians of all flavors know that David Koresh was a cult leader.

(So is Joel Olsteen, by the way.)

[Dante]

It's interesting to note that all Mormon sects point their fingers at other Mormon sects saying that all other Mormon sects aren't Mormon. Each one states they are the true Mormons. Each one knows that they are right.

Christians of all flavors know that David Koresh was a cult leader.

(So is Joel Olsteen, by the way.)

Humorous. David Koresh taught Biblical Christianity according to his interpretation (as does Joel Olsteen) and I suspect each think they were/are right and point to "fundamentalist/mainstream Christianity" as not true as they interpret it.

Just as liberal Christians believe they have it right to accept ****sexuality, ordaining women/gays as pastors, some saying baptism is necessary, some saying not so, etc, etc.

Maybe you need to abandon your Ministry Against Mormonism then and start concentrating on your own, as it seems while you are on full frontal attack on the LDS your own backyard gate is open.

I just read an article online that reports on the issue of "Musical Pews" (i.e.) the trend of Christians quitting one sect and joining another, sometimes leaving Christianity for Judaism, etc.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705300910/Playing-musical-pews.html

An excerpt from that article:

"When a little girl has a Jewish grandparent and the teacher says Jews are going to hell, it's not conducive to a sense of belonging," Talmadge explains. She stopped going to church as soon as she could and eventually found her own spiritual path.

"I do believe in God, and our spirituality is inherent in who we are," she says. "Religion is man-made dogma … Spirituality is God-made. Spiritual practice for me is very individualized."

And there are a couple more stories; one individual who felt correct "Christian" doctrine wasn't being taught and prayed about in his "Christina" sect so sought out another "Christian" sect that was closer to his beliefs... but we know there is no variance between all the Christina sects and that all of their doctrines line up, don't we?

(You'd like to think there are no ****ogous comparisons of LDS offshoots and aberrant Christian sects, but you would be wrong)

Better stop the bleeding...

[Richard]

Hi Richard, Just a question... what would be the purpose of these women being sealed to Joseph Smith, rather than their own husbands?

GI73

Again, this is a Theological question, not a act of sexual immaturity as you are want to believe. Eternal Progression, look it up as a starter.

R.

Post Script, why deflect, where is your evidence he committed adultery?

[SavedbyTruth]

Hi Richard, Just a question... what would be the purpose of these women being sealed to Joseph Smith, rather than their own husbands?

GI73

The highest level of the Celestial Kingdom is called exaltation. The ordinance of a Temple Sealing - which joins a man and woman for Eternity, needs to be performed in order to obtain exaltation. In order to be able to qualify for this ordinance, you need to be worthy of receiving it. When Joseph received the revelation about eternal marriage, members of the Church were anxious to receive the ordinance. However, many of the men were not worthy. They did not want to hamper the chances of their spouse not being able to reach exaltation. Since this ordinance did not change the civil marriage status of their union with their wife, the women were allowed to be sealed to Joseph, thus protecting their chance of exaltation.

As Joseph received more instruction about this ordinance, this requirement became better understood, and eventually, a man and a woman were able to be married for "time" AND "eternity" at the same time.

It was definitely an interesting time in our history as many things were being revealed while much was going on - the persecution of the saints, continuing organization of the Church and its administration, record keeping,teaching, missionary work, etc.

Hope this helps.

SbT

[GraftedIn73]

The highest level of the Celestial Kingdom is called exaltation. The ordinance of a Temple Sealing - which joins a man and woman for Eternity, needs to be performed in order to obtain exaltation. In order to be able to qualify for this ordinance, you need to be worthy of receiving it. When Joseph received the revelation about eternal marriage, members of the Church were anxious to receive the ordinance. However, many of the men were not worthy. They did not want to hamper the chances of their spouse not being able to reach exaltation. Since this ordinance did not change the civil marriage status of their union with their wife, the women were allowed to be sealed to Joseph, thus protecting their chance of exaltation.

As Joseph received more instruction about this ordinance, this requirement became better understood, and eventually, a man and a woman were able to be married for "time" AND "eternity" at the same time.

It was definitely an interesting time in our history as many things were being revealed while much was going on - the persecution of the saints, continuing organization of the Church and its administration, record keeping,teaching, missionary work, etc.

Hope this helps.

SbT

Hi SbT, It does help me understand what your Church believes and teaches in this area. Thanks!

GI73

[GraftedIn73]

Again, this is a Theological question, not a act of sexual immaturity as you are want to believe. Eternal Progression, look it up as a starter.

R.

Post Script, why deflect, where is your evidence he committed adultery?

Hi Richard, Please take a look at SbT's reply to my question and my reply to hers. Thanks!

GI73

[seebok]

Seebok, where for art thou?

Just kinda bored -- and very busy. The Perry's seem angrier than they were six months ago. Something happen at CARM to bring 'em over?

best

s.

[PostTribber]

My question is... is it accurate and appropriate to bring in "off shoots" or "break aways" from a main body of believers in order to make the main body of believers look evil or wrong? If you think the answer is NO, it shouldn't happen AND you are Christian, then why do you think that no other Christian on this other board came out and said anything? If you think the answer is Yes, then are you prepared to have the mirror placed before you?

since God is truth, and His will be done, those that worship God in spirit and in truth are they that know His truth and bow to His will. sometimes a majority consensus will force the 'godly' ones out. these may be the off-shoots that hold to biblical authority, or the break aways from those who seek unity at the expense of truth.

the only way to know these from the original is by truth, the truth found in the word of God.

[alanmolstad]

....

My question is... is it accurate and appropriate to bring in "off shoots" or "break aways" from a main body of believers in order to make the main body of believers look evil or wrong?

....

There is a LOT of bad-blood between the two main branches of Mormonism...let alone in many of the smaller branches.
All claim to be the true Mormons, and all think the other Mormons are nuts...LOL

So it not only is wise to bring such things up on Mormon topics here, it's also good to let us Christians know about such stuff going on because a lot of these issues not get much play in the media.

[alanmolstad]

I once got to sit on the sidelines of a heated argument at work between the two off-shoots of Mormonism over something that i still dont understand..."property"

it seems that underneath all the spitting and cussing was a small section of land that both sides claim as their own.

I will GOOGLE it , right now I forget the details...

[James Banta]

I once got to sit on the sidelines of a heated argument at work between the two off-shoots of Mormonism over something that i still dont understand..."property"

it seems that underneath all the spitting and cussing was a small section of land that both sides claim as their own.

I will GOOGLE it , right now I forget the details...

Could that be the Temple Lot in Missouri? Maybe the Kirkland Temple in Ohio? IHS jim

[Apologette]

I happened to peruse the LDS board on another site. On it, it had a link to a picture of the FLDS temple in Texas that had a bed as one of its altars. At the bottom of the initial post there was a "reason" why this pertained to the LDS board. The reason they gave was that the FLDS got their start, or are an off shoot, from the LDS Church.

My question is... is it accurate and appropriate to bring in "off shoots" or "break aways" from a main body of believers in order to make the main body of believers look evil or wrong?

If you think the answer is NO, it shouldn't happen AND you are Christian, then why do you think that no other Christian on this other board came out and said anything?

If you think the answer is Yes, then are you prepared to have the mirror placed before you?
Not only is the FLDS cult an off shoot, it is actually a group which is closer to original Mormonism than the SLC version. The revisionist stuff in SLC is pathetic - it has done away with all the super duper important stuff that Joe taught such as wearing proper undergarments (not the designer stuff the LDS in Utah wear); the true temple rites (not the revised version that SLC has, a very watered down version); and belief in Adam as god - a doctrine taught for many years by Brigham Young (and which came from Smith). What we see in SLC is a "user friendly" version of the cult founded by Smith! I think the fundies are more honest and far more true to what Joe taught.